New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-004, Claim No. 101370, Motion No. M-69363


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to vacate this Court's Decision dismissing his claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-004
Claimant(s):
THOMAS WILLIAMS
Claimant short name:
WILLIAMS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101370
Motion number(s):
M-69363
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
THOMAS WILLIAMSPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Vincent Cascio, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 25, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to vacate this Court's Decision dismissing his claim:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit..................................................1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibit...................................................2

Claimant's Letter of December 9, 2004......................................................................3

Claimant's Letter of January 6, 2005.........................................................................4

Claimant seeks to vacate this Court's Decision which, based upon lack of jurisdiction, dismissed that part of his claim which alleged that during his incarceration at Tappan Correctional Facility, he was exposed to an inmate who had an active case of tuberculosis, and which, on the merits, dismissed the remainder of the claim which alleged that defendant failed to provide claimant with adequate medical treatment.

Claimant argues that the first branch of his claim should not have been dismissed and that the Court should have, sua sponte, granted claimant late claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10. The most significant consideration in a late claim application is the appearance of merit of a proposed claim. This Court's Decision noted that, "the evidence failed to establish the merits of that branch of the claim." Thus, claimant's relief sought regarding this portion of the claim is moot.

As to the remainder of the claim, a full trial on the merits was had wherein testimony was heard from two doctors. Motions for a new trial are not favored and place a heavy burden upon the movant to establish a right to that relief (see Buckman v Perry's Taxi, 24 AD2d 913). Claimant has failed to meet that burden.

Upon review of all the papers submitted on this motion and claimant having been granted additional time to make any further submissions, this Court finds no legal basis for granting claimant's application.

Motion DENIED.


January 25, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims