New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
MAHMOOD v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2021-015-107, Claim No. 136594, Motion Nos. M-97311, M-97313, M-97349

Synopsis

Claimant's motion for a default judgment and to withdraw certain documents from NYSCEF was granted to the limited extent of directing the Clerk to withdraw certain documents which were erroneously filed on NYSCEF and the motion was otherwise denied.

Case information

UID: 2021-015-107
Claimant(s): MOHAMMED SAYEED MAHMOOD
Claimant short name: MAHMOOD
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) : The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 136594
Motion number(s): M-97311, M-97313, M-97349
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: Mohammed Sayeed Mahmood, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: December 1, 2021
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

In three motions, claimant moves (1) for the entry of a default judgment against the defendant for failing to appear and answer the claim; (2) to withdraw certain documents he e-filed utilizing the NYSCEF system; and (3) for an emergency hearing or inquest.

The initial claim in this matter, filed on July 14, 2021, is yet another iteration of a series of claims filed by this claimant seeking damages against the State of New York for its "intentional use of electronic radiations, electric current, energy attacks, and microwave weapons" (Claim, Doc. No. 1, filed July 14, 2021). Since the filing of this claim, claimant has filed 24 amended claims. The most recent amended claims, both filed on October 25, 2021, allege that on certain dates in August, September and October 2021 the defendant wrongfully conducted electronic surveillance against the claimant and acted to disallow his employment with various entities within and outside the State of New York.

Claimant's motion for the entry of a default judgment (motion No. M-97311) is denied as the defendant is not in default. Section 206.7 (b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR 206.7 [b]) permits a pleading to be amended in the manner provided by CPLR 3025, "except that a party may amend a pleading once without leave of court within 40 days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within 40 days after service of a pleading responding to it." Although the instant claim was amended without leave of court more than once, by retaining the amended pleading without objection the defendant waived its right to dispute its propriety (see Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909 [2d Dept 2006]; Golub v Ganz, 22 AD3d 919 [3d Dept 2005], n 2; Jordan v Aviles, 289 AD2d 532 [2d Dept 2001]; Sahinis v Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., 264 AD2d 474 [2d Dept 1999]; Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., FSB v Halo, 210 AD2d 572, 573 [3d Dept 1994]). Since claimant's most recent amended claim was served, without objection, on October 25, 2021, time remains for the service of a responsive pleading or motion (see 22 NYCRR 206.7 [a]). Claimant's motion for the entry of a default judgment is therefore denied.

Claimant also moves for permission to withdraw certain documents (Doc. Nos. 30, 34, 35, 40, 46-49) he unnecessarily filed because of his "ongoing mental instability" (Mahmood affidavit, Doc. No. 56, 1) (see motion No. M-97313). These documents consist of amended claims (Doc. Nos. 30, 34, 46-49), an affidavit of service (Doc. No. 35) and correspondence (Doc. No. 40). Inasmuch as the withdrawal of these documents does not prejudice the defendant or alter the date a responsive pleading or motion is due, the motion is granted and the Clerk is directed to withdraw document Nos. 30, 34, 35, 40, and 46-49 from the NYSCEF system.

Lastly, claimant's motion for the payment of emergency funds or an inquest (motion No. M-97349) is denied. No basis exists for the payment of emergency funds or for the holding of an inquest.

Accordingly, claimant's motion No. M-97313 is granted and motions No. M-97311 and M-97349 are denied.

December 1, 2021

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

M-97311

1. Notice of Motion dated September 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 51);

2. Affidavit in support sworn to September 23, 2021, with Exhibits A and B (Doc. Nos. 52-54);

3. Affirmation in opposition dated October 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 75).

M-97313

1. Notice of Motion dated September 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 55);

2. Affidavit in support sworn to September 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 56).

M-97349

1. Notice of Motion dated October 6, 2021 (Doc. No. 73);

2. Affidavit in support sworn to October 6, 2021 (Doc. No. 74).