New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SCOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-030-507, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-72628


Synopsis


Motion to reargue denied. If there is any merit to the claim first advanced and that this Court first rejected in a Decision and Order filed September 9, 2005 [M-70102], it is impossible to tell based upon the current application - in which Claimant continues his personal attacks - and the prior reargument motions referred to above. Claimant provides no factual or legal basis to reconsider this Court’s prior Decisions and Orders. Based upon Claimant’s conduct with regard to this proposed claim, apparently involving a motor vehicle accident on February 14, 2005 between a Green Haven Correctional Facility van and a private car, and an alleged lack of adequate medical treatment thereafter, not only is this motion denied, but no further applications relating to the proposed claim described in M-70102 and referenced in the two subsequent reargument motions will be accepted for filing or considered by the Court

Case Information

UID:
2007-030-507
Claimant(s):
ALLEN ROGERS SCOTT
Claimant short name:
SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-72628
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
ALLEN ROGERS SCOTT, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEANE L. STRICKLAND SMITH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 1, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read and considered on Claimant’s motion M-72628:

  1. Objection to Reply Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Reargue and Objection to Hon. Thomas H. Scuccimarra Defense for the State Decision October 11, 2006 by Allen Rogers Scott, Claimant and attachments
  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
  1. Filed Papers: Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71874, Decision and Order (Scuccimarra, J., October 17, 2006), and underlying papers; Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71022, Decision and Order (Scuccimarra, J., May 15, 2006), and underlying papers; Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-70102, Decision and Order (Scuccimarra, J., September 9, 2005), and underlying papers; Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, M-60968, Decision and Order (Patti, J., February 29, 2000); Scott v State of New York, Claim No. 100313; Motion No. M-60600, Decision and Order (McNamara, J., January 6, 2000).
Claimant’s motion for permission to file a claim was denied by Decision and Order filed on September 9, 2005 [M-70102]. Two subsequent motions for reargument were denied, respectively on May 15, 2006 [M-71022] and October 17, 2006 [M-71874]. In each case, rather than address the deficiencies in his original application, or establish a basis for reargument, Mr. Scott launched a series of verbal attacks against the Court and against the Assistant Attorney General who responded to his various applications as the representative of the State of New York.

This motion continues in the same vein, raising no factual or legal arguments concerning the actual proposed claim, but rather engaging in name calling. One new aspect in the largely incomprehensible papers is that Claimant now asserts he was prejudiced when the Assistant Attorney General mailed opposition papers to the address he had indicated on his return envelope [M-71874], and that the Court did not address a “motion” for a six (6) month adjournment of “proceedings.”

With respect to the mailing of the Defendant’s opposition papers on the earlier motion, Claimant responded to the Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition at the time with his own Reply Affirmation. [Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General, ¶3, Exhibit C]. The Court also notes that in an Affidavit of Service appended to those earlier moving papers [M-71874] Mr. Scott indicates that he “resides at Green Haven Correctional Facility . . .” and the copy of the mailing envelope indicates the same. [Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit B]. With respect to any “motion” for a six (6) month adjournment, this application - such as it was - is contained within the Claimant’s filed Reply Affirmation [M-71874]. [See Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit C, ¶6].

It is only upon close reading through the stream of vitriol, however, that the two “arguments” just cited can be discerned. The larger portion of Claimant’s present submission is made up of accusations of racism, discrimination, conspiracy and “fraudulent crimes”, with regard to this Court and Defendant’s attorneys, as well as new assertions of a “stalking conspiracy” against correction and medical personnel at his current institution.

As found in the Decision and Order by Judge McNamara filed on January 6, 2000, and in the Decision and Order by Judge Patti filed on February 29, 2000, this continued course of conduct is unacceptable, and will not be further countenanced. If there is any merit to the claim Mr. Scott first advanced and that this Court first rejected in a Decision and Order filed September 9, 2005 [M-70102], it is impossible to tell based upon the current application - in which Mr. Scott continues his personal attacks - and the prior reargument motions referred to above. Claimant provides no factual or legal basis to reconsider this Court’s prior Decisions and Orders.

Accordingly, based upon Claimant’s conduct with regard to this proposed claim, apparently involving a motor vehicle accident on February 14, 2005 between a Green Haven Correctional Facility van and a private car, and an alleged lack of adequate medical treatment thereafter, not only is this motion denied, but no further applications relating to the proposed claim described in M-70102 and referenced in the two subsequent reargument motions will be accepted for filing or considered by the Court.

February 1, 2007
White Plains, New York

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