New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-584, Claim No. 104590, Motion No. M-70913


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion for the assignment of counsel, Motion No. M-70913, is denied.


Case Information

UID:
2005-019-584
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):
104590
Motion number(s):
M-70913
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
THOMAS WILLIAMS, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 7, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for the second time for an order assigning counsel to assist him in litigating this claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

This court previously denied claimant's first motion for the assignment of counsel. (Williams v State of New York, Ct Cl, March 24, 2005, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104590, Motion No. M-69793 [UID No. 2002-019-523]).[1] Claimant's second motion for the assignment of counsel must be denied for the same reasons set forth in said prior Decision and Order and need not be repeated here. The court notes, however, that the fact that claimant proposes the specific name of an attorney who indicated a willingness to serve as assigned counsel does not alter the prior analysis whatsoever. This does not prevent claimant and this attorney from reaching a private contingency fee agreement, but the court declines to exercise its discretionary authority to assign counsel on this matter for the reasons previously stated.


Additionally, as a separate and distinct basis for denying claimant's motion and as noted in the denial of claimant's first motion for the assignment of counsel, a motion to proceed as a poor person must be served upon the parties, as well as the county attorney where the action is triable. (CPLR 1101 [c]). Claimant has not submitted a proper affidavit of service in connection with this matter and, as such, his failure to demonstrate service on the county attorney is, in and of itself, a separate ground for denying his motion.


Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that claimant's second motion for the assignment of counsel, Motion No. M-70913, is DENIED.


December 7, 2005
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim, filed July 17, 2001.
  2. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104590, Motion No. M-69793, filed March 31, 2005.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-70913, dated October 25, 2005, and filed October 31, 2005.
  4. Affidavit of Thomas Williams, in support of motion, sworn to October 27, 2005, with attachments.
  5. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion dated November 17, 2005 and filed November 21, 2005, with attachments.

[1]Selected unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at The court also denied the State's motion for summary judgment. (Williams v State of New York, Ct Cl, January 29, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104590, Motion No. M-64029).