New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-559, Claim No. 106547, Motion No. M-68519


Synopsis


Claimant's "motion to dismiss" is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-559
Claimant(s):
RUSHAWN YOUNG, #96-A-0446
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):
106547
Motion number(s):
M-68519
Cross-motion number(s):

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

Signature date:
July 7, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, a pro se inmate, makes what he describes as a "motion to dismiss" the above-referenced claim.[1] The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant states "[I] enter this motion to dismiss claim 106547 as my means of compensation should the defendants agree to my solution to solve our difference...." (Claimant's Motion to Dismiss, p 2). In other words, claimant seeks the court's assistance in negotiating a settlement of his claim with the State.[2] This court has previously advised this litigant in a letter dated December 23, 2003, that the court does not schedule settlement conferences in prisoner pro se cases nor compel the State to participate in settlement negotiations. Accordingly, claimant's motion will be denied and this matter will remain on the court's calendar to be reached for trial in due course.


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that claimant's motion to dismiss, Motion No. M-68519, is DENIED.


July 7, 2004
Binghamton, New York

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


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:

  1. Claim, filed August 23, 2002.
  2. Letter from Court to Claimant, dated December 23, 2003.
  3. "Motion to Dismiss Claim No. 106547", dated May 20, 2004, and filed May 20, 2004.
  4. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 22, 2004, and filed June 24, 2004.

[1]This is one of three similar motions directed to this claim submitted by claimant. The court designated each paper as a separate motion since each paper differed slightly and it was difficult to determine whether they were inaccurate handwritten copies or intended as separate motions. (See Motions Nos. M-68520 and M-68521).
[2]Claimant's unsworn reply affirmation in connection with the related Motion No. M-68521 clearly states that these motions were made in an attempt to provide the State with "an opportunity to settled [sic] this claim 106547." (Claimant's reply affirmation, ¶ 2).