1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Statement (captioned “Motion to
Vacate and Remand”) of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, with annexed Exhibits;
2. Affidavit in Opposition (none received).
Filed papers: Decision and Order, Brady v State of New York, UID
#2006-028-586, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-71491 (Ct Cl Oct 4, 2006), Sise,
By this motion, movant is asking the Court to “vacate it’s [sic]
summary dismissal and reopen the claims it has wrongfully, summarily and
prematurely dismissed,” referencing a decision dated October 2, 2006 and
contending that it was too incomplete “to constitute a final order”
and was therefore not appealable.
The decision to which he refers appears to be the Court’s decision and
order in Motion No. M-71491, which was deemed a motion for permission to late
file (Brady v State of New York, et al, UID #2006-028-586, Claim No.
NONE, Motion No. M-71491 [Ct Cl 2006], Sise, P.J.). That motion was denied on
the ground that the proposed claim submitted by movant was meritless on its
face, in that it sought to recover money damages based on the alleged negligence
or intentional tort of various judges and prosecutors. As was noted in that
decision, “the actions of judicial officers in carrying out their judicial
function are entitled to absolute immunity from liability,” as are
“actions performed by the prosecutor which are associated with the
prosecutorial phase of the criminal process.” (Id.)
An order denying permission to late file may be appealed (see e.g. Best
v State of New York, 42 AD3d 699 [3d Dept 2007]), and thus no further
action, or revision, on the part of the Court would be needed to permit movant
to take an appeal. Movant’s difficulty in perfecting the appeal of that
decision and order appears to be assembling an acceptable record on appeal
(see Brady v State of New York, UID #2007-028-543, Claim No. NONE,
Motion No. M-72717 [Ct Cl 2007], Sise, P.J.; Brady v State of New York, et
al, UID #2007-028-571, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-73541 [Ct Cl 2007],
Movant’s motion is DENIED.