New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-028-532, Claim No. 100879, Motion No. M-66382


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-028-532
Claimant(s):
JOMO WILLIAMS
Claimant short name:
WILLIAMS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100879
Motion number(s):
M-66382
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
JOMO WILLIAMS, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Janet L. Polstein, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 1, 2003
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In reaching its decision on the application of the Claimant, Jomo Williams, the Court has considered the following papers:

(1) Claimant's Notice of Motion filed February 7, 2003;

(2) Notice of Amended Motion with supporting papers annexed thereto, filed on February 10, 2003;


(3) Claimant's Letter filed February 11, 2003;


(4) "Supplement" filed February 28, 2003;

(5) Claimant's Reply filed March 24, 2003;

(6) Affirmation of Janet L. Polstein in Opposition (Polstein Affirmation) with annexed Exhibits "A-C", filed March 25, 2003;

(7) "Notice" filed March 26, 2003;

(8) Answer in Opposition to State's Request for Extension of Time, filed March 26, 2003;


(9) Claimant's Response filed April 15, 2003.

In his Notice of Motion, the Claimant seeks, inter alia, to extend his time pursuant to §5601(b)(2) of the CPLR to "renew/reargue and/or appeal".

The State opposes the application[1] on the dual grounds that it is untimely and that it is not an application cognizable under New York Practice. The Court agrees.

The instant application arises from a decision rendered by the Hon. Susan Phillips Read on December 10, 2002 and filed on December 20, 2002, dismissing the claim of Mr. Williams. His application, as determined by a textual exegesis of his moving papers, is to extend his time to challenge the decision of Judge Read. His citation of CPLR §5601(b)(2) relates to appeals to the Court of Appeals. In actuality, the appellate process requires an appeal to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR Article 55.

A review of the Claimant's application further reveals that not only is it addressed to the wrong court, but it is also untimely. Pursuant to CPLR Article 55, the judgment in question should have been appealed to the Appellate Division. Similarly, a Notice to Appeal or a request for an extension of time to appeal should have been made within thirty (30) days (see CPLR §§5513 and 5514).

The Judgment of Dismissal in the present matter was entered on December 27, 2002 and served upon the Claimant "[d]uring the holiday season at the end of December 2002 ..." [2] The application for an extension of time was made on February 7, 2003. Clearly beyond the time limit set forth in the CPLR. On January 27, 2003, the Clerk of the Court, David B. Klingaman, responding to a letter by the Claimant apparently requesting an extension of time, advised Claimant that his request was not ordinarily available and that he should consult his attorney. In response, the Claimant brought the present application.

A review of the Claimant's papers indicate that the proper procedural method, assuming Claimant wanted to file in this Court, would have been an application to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR Rule 5015. In view of the Claimant's pro se status, the Court has reviewed the grounds enumerated in the section in order to determine if his papers alleged any cognizable ground. The Court finds that the papers neither contained any enumerated grounds, nor did they contain any ground which would have permitted a judge to relieve the Claimant of the judgment "for good cause shown."

Accordingly, the Court denies the Claimant's Motion in its entirety.



May 1, 2003
Albany, New York
HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims





[1] The Court extended the time of the Office of the Attorney-General to respond, for good cause shown.
[2] Notice of Motion, p 2 [unpaginated]. Claimant did not indicate the exact date of reception, except that it was before New Years.