New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HONG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-004-518, Claim No. 100973, Motion No. M-61467


Synopsis


Claimant moves for permission to amend his Claim and for appointment of counsel. Both aspects of the motion were denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-004-518
Claimant(s):
JI HONG
Claimant short name:
HONG
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100973
Motion number(s):
M-61467
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JEROME F. HANIFIN
Claimant's attorney:
JI HONG, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Michael J. Danaher, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 16, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant moves to amend his Claim and for the appointment of counsel.


The Papers considered by the Court:

Claim, filed August 26, 1999 1

Verified Answer, filed September 29, 1999 2


Memorandum-Decision and Order, Hanifin, J., Claim No. 100973,
Motion No. M-60301, filed October 26, 1999 3


Memorandum-Decision and Order, Hanifin, J., Claim No. 100973,
Motion No. M-60623, filed March 3, 2000 4

Notice of Motion, filed April 3, 2000 5

Affidavit of Ji Hong, in support of Motion, sworn to March 30, 2000 6


Affirmation of Michael J. Danaher, Jr., in opposition to motion,
dated April 25, 2000, filed April 28, 2000 7

Reply of Ji Hong, in support of motion, filed May 8, 2000 8


The Claim[1] recites in pertinent part:

2. The claim is for negligence of the State for allowing inmate Baxter...to assault me in a violent manner.

3. On the 3rd day of August, 1999 at 5:40 pm;...Baxter...assaulted and beat the plaintiff [sic] herein by severely cutting said plaintiff [sic] with a razor too [sic] both face and neck.....

(Paper No. 1)


In a previous Memorandum-Decision and Order (Paper No. 4), the Court recited in a footnote that the Claim "makes no mention of the nature of the duty owed by the State to Claimant, nor does it describe any actionable acts or omissions on the part of the State." Claimant now requests the Court "allow amendment by addendum and/or Memorandum of Law." (Paper No. 6, ¶ 14).


The Claim, while clearly marginal, sufficiently gives the State notice, that Claimant seeks damages "for allowing" an assault. As the State has failed to raise the insufficiency of the Claim in its Verified Answer (Paper No. 2), an amendment is not necessary, as the Claim may be sufficiently fleshed-out through discovery, in particular, in responses to a demand for a Bill of Particulars.


Turning to that aspect of Claimant's motion requesting the appointment of counsel, that is denied for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum-Decision and Orders (Papers 3 & 4).


The Court notes that there is nothing in Claimant's submissions that indicate that he has attempted to obtain counsel to represent him on a contingency fee basis.


In light of the foregoing, it is


ORDERED that the Motion No. M-61467 is DENIED.




June 16, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. JEROME F. HANIFIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]
The Claimant interspersed capital letters with lowercase throughout the Claim. The Court in its discretion has corrected the capitalization.