New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RODRIGUEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-552, Claim No. 105169, Motion No. M-68269


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2004-030-552
Claimant(s):
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ
Claimant short name:
RODRIGUEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105169
Motion number(s):
M-68269
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, 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:
July 23, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 7, were read on Claimant's motion for an Order


permitting him to proceed as a poor person:

1-3. Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR § 1101 by Claimant, Carlos Rodriguez with attachments, Affidavit of Service upon Attorney General, Letter from Claimant in support.

4. Affirmation in Opposition by Mary B. Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits.

5. Reply Affirmation by Claimant, Carlos Rodriguez

6,7. Filed Papers: Claim No. 105169, Verified Answer Claim No. 105169

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

Carlos Rodriguez, the inmate Claimant, pro se, alleges in his claim that the Defendant is liable for medical malpractice for failing to follow medical regulations by leaving his illness untreated for a lengthy period of time.

With regard to Claimant's motion, there are no provisions in the Court of Claims Act concerning the prosecution of actions under poor person status. Accordingly, Article 11 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules controls consideration of such relief. Section 9(9) of the Court of Claims Act; Wilson v State of New York, 101 Misc 2d 924 (Ct Cl 1979). Section 1101(a) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules allows a court to grant poor person status to a claimant upon motion supported by ". . . an affidavit setting forth the amount and sources of his . . . income and listing his . . . property with its value; that he . . . is unable to pay the costs, fees and expenses necessary to prosecute . . . the action . . . " In this case, Claimant made an application pursuant to CPLR 1101(f) for a reduction in the filing fee required by the Court of Claims Act §11-a(1). In an Order of the Hon. Susan Phillips Read filed November 20, 2001, it was found that Claimant was entitled to a reduced filing fee of $40.00. Aside from the filing fee, there are no other fees in the Court of Claims.

Since the filing fee has already been addressed, prosecuting the matter in this Court does not require Claimant to pay any further costs or fees. Nevertheless, payment of a particular item of expense as the need arises may be available at the proper time upon a showing of sufficient cause. Mapp v State of New York, 69 AD2d 911, 415 NYS2d 278 (3d Dept 1979). However, no such showing has been made here. Although the Claimant included in his application to proceed as a poor person a copy of his correctional facility trust fund account statement, such a showing is insufficient. The fact that Claimant may be impoverished because he is incarcerated entitles him to no greater rights than a non-prisoner pro se litigant who does not have the funds to carry out all the normal steps of litigation, including discovery. Loper v State of New York, Claim No. 104861, M-66818, filed June 23, 2003, Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530. There is no general provision which requires the State to pay the litigation expenses in claims brought against it and it is well settled that the State has the right to require Claimant to pay reasonable photocopying costs of demanded discovery documents. Loper, supra, Gittens, supra.

Consequently, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Claimant's motion, Motion No. M-68269, is DENIED.

July 23, 2004
White Plains, New York

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