New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-019-501, Claim Nos. 106546, 106547, 106548, Motion No. M-66108


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion for appointment of counsel and raising various discovery issues is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-019-501
Claimant(s):
RUSHAWN YOUNG
Claimant short name:
YOUNG
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106546, 106547, 106548
Motion number(s):
M-66108
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
RUSHAWN YOUNG, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General,of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 15, 2003
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, makes this motion entitled "Motion For the Appointment of Counsel Request and or Demand for Discovery Demand for Documents". The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim No. 106546, filed August 23, 2002.
  2. Claim No. 106547, filed August 23, 2002.
  3. Claim No. 106548, filed August 23, 2002.
  4. "Affirmation in Opposition", of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, Claim No. 106546, Motion No. M-66108, dated September 16, 2002, and filed September 19, 2002.
  5. "Affirmation in Opposition", of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, Claim No. 106547, Motion No. M-66108, dated September 16, 2002, and filed September 19, 2002.
  6. "Affirmation in Opposition", of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, Claim No. 106548, Motion No. M-66108, dated September 16, 2002, and filed September 19, 2002.
  7. Notice of Motion No. M-66108, dated November 11, 2002, and filed December 2, 2002.
  8. Affidavit of Rushawn Young, in support of motion, sworn to November 8, 2002.
  9. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim Nos. 106546, 106547, 106548, Motion No. M-65986, filed December 4, 2002.
  10. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated December 18, 2002, and filed December 20, 2002, with attached exhibit.
This Court previously denied Claimant's motion seeking various types of relief including, but not limited to, poor person status and discovery matters. (Young v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 4, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim Nos. 106546, 106547 & 106548, Motion No. M-65986 [UID No. 2002-019-586]).[1]


In support of this motion Claimant has submitted two documents. The first document is framed as a Notice of Motion and is entitled "Motion For the Appointment of Counsel Request and or Demand for Discovery Demand for Documents". In addition to the request for the appointment of counsel, this paper also includes a general request that original documents and photographs be provided directly to the Court. The second supporting paper is an affidavit from Claimant entitled "Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel." This affidavit is comprised of six handwritten pages and includes Claimant's narrative reciting the underlying factual allegations of these claims; allegations of various conspiracies within the facility; as well as the hardships of prison life. There is nothing in Claimant's affidavit addressing any discovery issues.

Turning to the merit of Claimant's current motion, a comparison of Claimant's prior application (Motion No. M-65986) to the papers currently before the Court reveals substantial similarities. The Court notes that this second motion was filed by Claimant with the Clerk of the Court on December 2, 2002 which was prior to the filing of this Court's Decision and Order on December 4, 2002 with respect to Claimant's first motion. That having been said, Claimant's requests herein for the appointment of counsel and for assistance in conducting discovery are denied for the same reasons stated in this Court's prior Decision and Order. (Young v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 4, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim Nos. 106546, 106547 & 106548, Motion No. M-65986).


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that Claimant's motion, Motion No. M-66108, is DENIED in its entirety.


January 15, 2003
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at http://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us/decision.htm.