New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RYAN v. New York, #2000-012-504, Claim No. 100834, Motion No. M-61094


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2000-012-504
Claimant(s):
RICHARD RYAN
Claimant short name:
RYAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100834
Motion number(s):
M-61094
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
John P. Lane
Claimant's attorney:
Richard Ryan, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Wendy E. Morcio Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 4, 2000
City:
Buffalo
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant's application for permission to proceed in forma pauperis:

Petition 1

Affidavit in Opposition 2

Claimant alleges, without specificity, that he is unable to pay the "costs, fees and expenses necessary to prosecute this action." He also states that he does not know of any attorney who is willing to represent him, and he requests that an attorney be appointed to represent him without compensation.

There is no indication that claimant's motion was served on the county attorney, as required by law; nevertheless, when considered on its merits claimant's application must fail.

The instant claim was filed on August 5, 1999, prior to the effective date of Court of Claims Act §11-a, which imposes a filing fee for claims in this court. Thus, his claim was duly filed without any filing fee. Additionally, defense counsel notes that the claim was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, which claimant was either able to afford himself or which was paid pursuant to the Department of Correctional Services' policy of providing postage for legal mail. No other "costs, fees and expenses" in connection with the prosecution of this claim are apparent.

Finally, the court notes that there is no right to the appointment of counsel in civil actions for damages (Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433). Claimant may either obtain counsel via a contingency fee arrangement (which is the traditional fee arrangement in medical malpractice actions) or he may proceed on a pro se basis.

Accordingly, the motion is denied in all respects.


April 4, 2000
  1. abBuffalo, New York
  2. ab
  3. abHON. JOHN P. LANE
  4. abJudge of the Court of Claims
  5. ab