New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALLOY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-001-061, Claim No. 102694, Motion No. M-62183


Synopsis


Claimant's motions seeking an order directing the Attorney-General's Office to send claimant proof of service in the form of the return receipts for claims Nos. 102694, 102695, 102696, 102697 and 102804 are denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-001-061
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MALLOY
Claimant short name:
MALLOY
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102694
Motion number(s):
M-62183
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Susan Phillips Read
Claimant's attorney:
Anthony Malloy, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 27, 2000
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)
2000-001-062,2000-001-060

Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant's motions seeking orders directing the Attorney-General's Office to send claimant proof of service in the form of the return receipts for claims Nos. 102694, 102695, 102696, 102697 and 102804: Notice of Motion for M-62183, dated July 24 and filed July 27, 2000; Affidavit in Support of Anthony Malloy, dated July 24 and filed July 27, 2000; two Letters from Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG, dated August 1 and received August 1, 2000; Reply of Anthony Malloy, dated August 5 and filed August 9, 2000; Notice of Motion for M-62184, dated July 31 and filed August 3, 2000; Affidavit in Support of Anthony Malloy, undated and filed August 3, 2000; Notice of Motion for M-62184 (sic), dated August 21 and filed August 25, 2000;[1] Letter from Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG, dated and received September 21, 2000; Notice of Motion for M-62281, dated August 10 and filed August 17, 2000; Affidavit in Support of Anthony Malloy, dated August 10 and filed August 17, 2000; and Letter from Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG, dated September 6 and received September 7, 2000;

As he has on a prior motion before this Court (see, Malloy v State of New York, Ct Cl, unreported decision filed August 7, 2000, Read, P. J., Claim No. 99128, Motion No. M-61513), claimant Anthony Malloy ("claimant") again alleges that the Attorney-General's Office, and more specifically Ms. Carol McKay, failed to return the green receipt cards to him despite his service of certain of his claims by certified mail, return receipt requested.[2] Accordingly, claimant seeks orders from this Court directing the Department of Law to return the green receipt cards or face sanctions.

By letter response, Assistant Attorney-General Glenn C. King states that claimant has sent notices of intention to file a claim to the Attorney-General by certified mail, but not by certified mail, return receipt requested. To support this contention, AAG King has provided the Court with photocopies of the envelopes bearing certificate nos. 7099 3400 0007 5418 6135 (M-62183) and 7099 3400 0007 5418 9259 (M-62281), in which correspondence from claimant was received.

Specifically, the photocopies of claimant's correspondence to the Attorney-General's Office show that the certified mailings at issue in M-62183 and M-62281 were not sent return receipt requested. Moreover, as this Court explained in a decision filed August 7, 2000, claimant is mistaken in his expectation that an employee of the Attorney-General's Office is responsible for providing him with proof of service: "[I]f service is made by certified mail, return receipt requested, the green receipt card is signed by a [Department of Law] employee--perhaps Ms. McKay, perhaps someone else--but custody of the card always remains with the U.S. Postal Service, which returns the signed card to the sender-claimant. Under no circumstances would a [Department of Law] employee be expected, or allowed, to create and serve proof of service on the Attorney General's Office" (Malloy v State of New York, Ct Cl, unreported decision filed August 7, 2000, Read, P.J., Motion No. M-61513, supra).

Motions such as these, which are clearly without merit in either fact or law, are burdensome on the Court and deprive other claims of the Court's attention. In light of the prior decision (see, id.), as well as this decision, any further motions made by claimant on this subject will be deemed frivolous and subject to sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130, 206.20). The Court denies claimant's motions Nos. M-62183, M-62184 and M-62281.


October 27, 2000
Albany, New York

HON. SUSAN PHILLIPS READ
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]
Claimant's papers filed on August 25, 2000 purport to relate to Motion No. M-62184, but seem to seek wholly unrelated relief. Specifically, claimant appears to be asking this Court to force a Deputy Superintendent for Security at his correctional facility to view videotapes taken from "Federal channel u4, 55, Suv4", which would allegedly show individuals garbed in white "klu klux klan" gowns in and around claimant's correctional facility, and to view these purported video tapes herself. Claimant also requests to speak with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to have the Deputy Superintendent for Security moved out of his present correctional facility.
[2]
The claims at issue in this motion are Claim Nos. 102694, 102695, 102696, 102697, 102733 and 102804.