New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALLOY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-006, Claim No. 105262, Motion Nos. M-67233, M-67326


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-006
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MALLOY
Claimant short name:
MALLOY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105262
Motion number(s):
M-67233, M-67326
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ANTHONY MALLOY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: JAMES L. GELORMINI, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 20, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 9, were read on motions by Claimant for permission to amend his claim:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion (M-67233), filed August 11, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to August 6, 2003;
3. Claimant's Notice of Motion (M-67326), filed August 29, 2003;
4. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to August 26, 2003;
5. Correspondence from Claimant, dated September 16, 2003;
6. Claimant's "Notice of Motion" (M-67233 and M-67326), filed September 19, 2003;
7. Correspondence from Claimant, dated September 22, 2003, with attachments;
8. Correspondence from Claimant, dated October 2, 2003, with exhibits;
9. Filed documents: Claim and Answer. Claimant has initiated two motions, each apparently seeking the same relief, to wit: permission to amend his claim. In his original claim, filed on November 26, 2001, Claimant alleges that, on October 24, 2001, while incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit at Attica Correctional Facility, he was assaulted by another inmate. According to Claimant, this other inmate, inmate Kello, reached out of his cell and cut Claimant on his right arm with a razor-like weapon.

Claimant filed motion M-67233 on August 11, 2003, and motion M-67326 on August 29, 2003. However, in neither motion does Claimant identify why, or in what way he seeks to amend his claim. In his numerous subsequent submissions to the Court, Claimant has submitted what may be a proposed amended claim, although the document is not identified as such and it was sworn to almost a year ago, in February of 2003. Confusing matters more are the numerous submissions from Claimant in which he apologizes for his inability to serve Defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested (which is not required) and for his failure to serve Defendant with copies of the exhibits, including, presumably, the proposed amended claim.

I find that Claimant has failed to demonstrate his right to the relief requested. Within the voluminous submissions by Claimant, I find nothing that identifies what in his claim Mr. Malloy seeks to amend and why he seeks to amend it. The Court and Defendant are left to compare the original claim with what I mentioned above may or may not be the proposed amended claim and guess at what has been changed and how.

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Claimant's motions M-67233 and M-67326, for permission to amend his claim are both denied.

January 20, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims