New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DRAKEFORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-540, Claim No. 102148, Motion No. M-68139


Synopsis


Claimant's application to settle the transcript is denied as moot.


Case Information

UID:
2004-028-540
Claimant(s):
JOSEPHINE DRAKEFORD and QUINTIN XAVIER DRAKEFORD
Claimant short name:
DRAKEFORD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102148
Motion number(s):
M-68139
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
JOSEPHINE DRAKEFORD, pro se and
QUINTIN XAVIER DRAKEFORD, pro seBY: JOSEPHINE DRAKEFORD, prose
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Albert Masry, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 21, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Claimants' application to settle the transcript pursuant to CPLR 5525:


1) Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Josephine Drakeford filed

March 3, 2004 (Drakeford Affidavit) with annexed "Exhibits";


2) Opposition Papers: None.


Claimants, after unsuccessfully attempting to settle the transcript with the Defendant, bring the instant application to settle the transcript. This matter was referred to the undersigned as the trial judge, the Hon. Susan Phillips Read, was appointed to the Court of Appeals in January 2003.

CPLR 5525 provides the mechanism by which the transcript may be settled. Here, by Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, dated December 11, 2003, Claimants were directed to settle the transcript on or before February 2, 2004 and to perfect their appeal on or before March 1, 2004 (see Drakeford Affidavit, "Exhibits").

The Court has not been advised that Claimants have been granted an extension of the time limits set forth by the Appellate Division. As such, this application, which was filed beyond either of the time periods dictated by the Appellate Division, would appear to be moot.

However, an appellant is entitled to have the transcript settled (see Wahrhaftig v Space Design Group, Inc., 28 AD2d 940). Upon review of the submissions, the Court adopts only those amendments agreed to by the parties; to wit, that the caption conform to that contained on the decision and order (the Court presumes this to include the full name of the second Claimant instead of the "& ANO" on the transcript title page) and that the transcript, on pages 3 and 44, reflect the correct spelling of "Mr. Dertinger".

Accordingly, Claimants are directed to make the corrections set forth above to the original transcript and the parties are directed to certify same in accordance with CPLR 5525(c).

Claimants' motion is hereby Granted in part and denied in part consistent with the foregoing.



June 21, 2004
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims