New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HODGES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-009-010, Claim No. 114558, Motion No. M-74751


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion seeking an extension of time was denied as unnecessary.

Case Information

UID:
2008-009-010
Claimant(s):
CLIFTON HODGES
Claimant short name:
HODGES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114558
Motion number(s):
M-74751
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
CLIFTON HODGES, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 5, 2008
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an “extension of time for taking an appeal.”

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support 1,2

Correspondence dated March 27, 2008 from G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq., Assistant Attorney General 3

The Court has examined the within claim, which appears to be one for lost property. In his motion, however, claimant has made reference to § 206.21(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims, which is included in a section of special rules applicable only to appropriation claims. It is readily apparent that the instant claim is not one for appropriation, and therefore claimant’s reliance upon § 206.21(g) is misplaced.

Furthermore, the Court has also examined the records maintained by the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims, and finds that the instant claim is open and active; that there is no record of any pending appeal pertaining to this claim; and that there are no outstanding motions (aside from the instant motion) brought by either party with regard to this claim.

Finally, the Court has been advised by the Assistant Attorney General defending this claim that all of defendant’s discovery demands have been answered by the claimant, and that there are no other outstanding discovery issues.

Based on the foregoing, therefore, the Court is unable to determine any reason that claimant would be requesting an extension of time. The Court therefore finds that this motion has no basis in law or fact, and is unnecessary.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-74751 is hereby DENIED.


May 5, 2008
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims