New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-020, Claim No. 106825, Motion No. M-66210


Synopsis


Claimant's motion seeking sanctions against Defendant for incident unrelated to his claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-020
Claimant(s):
JOSEPH BERRY
Claimant short name:
BERRY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106825
Motion number(s):
M-66210
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
JOSEPH BERRY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 21, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 6, were read on motion by Claimant for sanctions against Defendant:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed January 6, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to January 2, 2003, with attached exhibit;
3. Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., dated January 10, 2003;
4. Supplemental Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., dated January 23, 2003, with attached exhibit;
  1. Claimant's unsworn "Request For Extension of time To File a Reply," filed January 29, 2003;
6. Claimant's unsworn "Reply to Defendants [sic] Opposition Papers," filed February 24, 2003, with attached exhibits. Claimant brings this motion requesting that the Court sanction Defendant pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.1(c)(2), 130-1.2, and (apparently) the Uniform Rules For The Court Of Claims § 206.20.

Claimant asserts that, on December 24, 2002, he was the victim of an improperly conducted cell search and that, during this search, his legal documents were read by a correction officer and his personal property was not returned to its pre-search location. Additionally, he claims that one document was confiscated without a contraband slip being issued to him. Claimant seeks sanctions against Defendant for the trouble this search has caused him and to dissuade Defendant's agents from similar actions in the future.

Defendant opposes this motion, correctly pointing out that the claim underlying this action is for dental negligence. Defendant argues that the cell search and the persons conducting that search are in no way related to the underlying claim. Defendant argues that the Rules of the Chief Administrator, cited by Claimant and upon which Claimant bases his application, require that the frivolous conduct complained of come about within the framework of the litigation. I agree. These rules were promulgated as a means of punishing and discouraging abusive litigation tactics (see Timoney v Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc., 299 AD2d 201). They are not a substitute or a short cut for Claimant, who could address (and apparently has) his concerns either administratively, through the grievance process, or through an Article 78 proceeding (McCloud v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 6, 2001 [Claim No. 103795], Read, P. J., UID No. 2001-001-026). In any event, Claimant's concerns relating to his cell search are in no manner related to his claim and are not properly before this Court.

Therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion for sanctions against Defendant is denied.

April 21, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims