New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SALDANA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-027-556, Claim No. 103172, Motion No. M-62791


Synopsis


Pro Se motion seeking a Court Order providing that certain transcript and subpoena fees be paid by Dutchess County.

Case Information

UID:
2001-027-556
Claimant(s):
JUAN SALDANA
Claimant short name:
SALDANA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103172
Motion number(s):
M-62791
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
ALTON R. WALDON, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
Juan Saldana, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Dewey Lee, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 7, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were reviewed by the court on this motion: Claimant's "Motion"[1], Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition, Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Filed Claim.

Claimant, Juan Saldana, a pro se inmate, who currently resides at the Green Haven Correctional Facility, has moved pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules(CPLR) CPLR §1102(b), to have the court issue an order wherein the County of Dutchess would pay for stenographic transcripts of examinations before trial and subpoena fees associated with this action.

Claimant, puts forth numerous allegations of wrongdoing against defendant, the State of New York, in his Claim. Specifically, claimant alleges that he was assaulted by various correctional officers at the Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Claimant's motion to proceed as a poor person was previously denied by this Court, hence the provisions of CPLR §1102(b) are not applicable to claimant.

Therefore for the foregoing reasons claimant's motion is denied.


May 7, 2001
New York, New York

HON. ALTON R. WALDON, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]The Court will treat claimant's submission entitled "Motion" as both a Notice of Motion and Affidavit in Support of this Motion. It is readily apparent to the Court that claimant, a pro se litigant, intended his "Motion" to be considered a substitute for the requirement of both of these documents.