New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MICOLO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-028, Claim No. 110324, Motion No. M-69895


Synopsis


Inmate claimant's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-028
Claimant(s):
MARCUS A. MICOLO
Claimant short name:
MICOLO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110324
Motion number(s):
M-69895
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
MARCUS A. MICOLOPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 28, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for the appointment of counsel:
Motion for Appointment of Counsel..........................................................................1

Defendant's Letter of March 30, 2005 Taking No Position on the Motion.............2

This claim arises out of an incident that allegedly occurred on October 16, 2004 during claimant's incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The claim alleges that claimant was assaulted by another inmate due to defendant's negligent supervision and the placement of surveillance equipment which obstructed the correction officers' view. Claimant seeks appointment of counsel and argues that, without counsel, he will not be provided with certain discovery materials which may pose a security risk.

The appointment of counsel is neither statutorily nor constitutionally required in such a case which does not involve a deprivation of claimant's fundamental rights or liberty and does not warrant an exercise of this Court's discretion to appoint an attorney to appear without compensation (see Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433; Jacox v Jacox, 43 AD2d 716). As to claimant's discovery issues, they are neither ripe for review nor are they dispositive of the issue of whether claimant is entitled to the appointment of counsel because, even with counsel, such documents may be privileged. Therefore, any discovery issues, when ripe for review, may be resolved by future motion practice.

Motion DENIED.

April 28, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims