New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-500, Claim No. 101422, Motion No. M-60969


Motion by Defendant for sanctions based upon harassing and threatening language by Claimant in an affidavit in reply on a motion for poor person status. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the claim.

Case Information

Walter Young, 94-A-4587 The Court sua sponte amended the caption to reflect the only properly named Defendant.
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court sua sponte amended the caption to reflect the only properly named Defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Thomas J. McNamara
Claimant's attorney:
Walter Young, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 22, 2000.
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The Defendant, State of New York, has made an application for an Order pursuant to Court of Claims Uniform Rules, Rule 206.20 and Uniform Trial Court Rules, Part 130 and Subpart 130-1 to sanction the Claimant.

The Court has read and considered the following papers:

  1. Notice of Motion dated December 30, 1999 with exhibits attached.
  2. Claimants opposition filed January 18, 2000.
Defendant has moved pursuant to the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims §206.20 and Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator for an order sanctioning Claimant for harassing and threatening language contained in a reply affidavit and directed at the Assistant Attorney General who had opposed Claimant's application for poor person status.

Under 22 NYCRR Part 130 the court, in its discretion, may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct. Conduct is deemed frivolous under Part 130 if "... it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law (or) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another..."(22 NYCRR § 130-1.1[c]). In addition, courts of record are vested with inherent powers which permit such courts to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of their jurisdiction (Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445, 448-449, appeal dismissed 66 NY2d 741).

The language employed by Claimant is debasing, insulting and threatening and a vile assault upon the moral integrity of an Assistant Attorney General. The purpose of such frivolous and deplorable conduct could only be harassment and should not be tolerated from those who seek relief from our judicial system. The appropriate remedy for such abuse is to dismiss the claim under this court's inherent powers (Jermosen v State of New York, 178 AD2d 810). Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

February 22, 2000.
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims