New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MICOLO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-010-004, Claim No. 110324, Motion No. M-74505


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for litigation costs is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-010-004
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-74505
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
MARCUS A. MICOLOPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 19, 2008
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 litigation costs in his claim against the State:
Motion, Claimant’s Supporting Statement...............................................................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...................................................................2

This claim arises out of an inmate assault upon claimant which occurred during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility on October 16, 2004. Claimant seeks an order awarding him “the resourses [sic] to aquire [sic] professional and expert witnesses who will present facts and expert opinions relevant to plaintiff[’]s claim at his trial” (Claimant’s Motion, p 1). Specifically, claimant seeks: a prison security expert; a private investigator; a psychologist who specializes in criminology; and a maxillofacial expert to assert certain facts (Claimant’s Motion, p 2). There is so legal authority which requires the State to pay the litigation costs in claims brought against the State (see Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530; Brabham v State of New York, 13 Misc 3d 1222[A]). Moreover, Civil Rights Law §79 specifically provides that “the state shall not be liable for any expense of or related to any such action or proceeding” brought by an inmate in a State correctional institution.

Accordingly, claimant’s motion is DENIED.[1]


March 19, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. It is noted that claimant’s motion was not notarized and not in proper form. Nonetheless, in the interests of justice, the Court has considered claimant’s application.