New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MACK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-538, Claim No. 102678, Motion No. M-68207


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2004-030-538
Claimant(s):
CHRISTOPHER MACK
Claimant short name:
MACK
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102678
Motion number(s):
M-68207
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
CHRISTOPHER MACK, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: MARY B. KAVANEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 25, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on Claimant's motion number M-68207 requesting an order granting compensatory damages and/or restoration of the Claim to the calendar:
1,2 Notice of Motion, Affidavit of Service and attached papers
  1. Letter to Claimant from Assistant Attorney General dated April 12, 2004
4,5 Filed papers: Claim, Answer

After carefully reviewing the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

As an initial matter the Affidavit of Service appended to the motion papers only indicates that the Attorney General was served with the Notice of Motion. See 22 NYCRR §§206.8 and 206.9. A letter, however, addressed to Claimant from the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which was furnished to this Court, indicates that no motion papers were received. No supporting Affidavit is included, except for a letter addressed to the Court indicating he had been homeless after his release from the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services until December 30, 2003. He does not indicate his release date. Accordingly, the motion is denied on procedural grounds alone.

More substantively, Claimant does not indicate what relief he is requesting. The Notice of Motion provides only that he wants an order of "compensatory damages." The appended papers appear to be talking about a default in appearance on his part for trial, and asks for the Court to excuse his failure to provide a new address. He includes copies of medical records for various time periods.

A review of the Clerk's file reveals that this Claim was dismissed for a trial default on May 21, 2002 when Claimant failed to appear as scheduled. The letter Claimant has appended, dated February 10, 2004, speaks about events occurring well after the day the Claim was dismissed. The medical records are from calendar years 2000 and 2001, and have nothing to do with Claimant's default on May 21, 2002. Treated as an application to restore the Claim, then, the motion is also deficient.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion number M-68207 is in all respects denied.

June 25, 2004
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims