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,
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
, 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
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.
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.