New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

REYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-040-077, Claim No. 109018


Synopsis


Claim dismissed, failure to prosecute. Pro se Claimant failed to appear for trial.

Case Information

UID:
2008-040-077
Claimant(s):
HECTOR REYES / DIN # 95A5612
Claimant short name:
REYES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109018
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Hector Reyes, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Saul Aronson, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 10, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The State’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is granted.

This Claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court by the pro se Claimant on March 10, 2004 and the Amended Claim was filed on July 13, 2005. The Amended Claim alleges that on October 23, 2003,Claimant was the victim of dental malpractice at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Malone, New York. Claimant asserts that he was misdiagnosed and did not receive timely or proper dental treatment.

This Claim was transferred from the Unassigned (Prisoner Pro Se) Calendar to the Individual Assignment Calendar of this Judge by Order of Presiding Judge Richard E. Sise, filed on October 30, 2007. By letter dated June 5, 2008, this Court advised Claimant and Defendant that this matter was scheduled for trial on November 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. at the Court of Claims in Albany. The letter addressed to Claimant at his last-known address, which he provided to the Court by letter received April 7, 2008, was not returned to the Court.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, the Court responded to Claimant’s October 16, 2008 telephone request for a video trial or submission upon papers. Claimant was advised that a personal appearance was required and that a failure to appear at trial would result in the entry of an order dismissing the Claim for want of prosecution.

Claimant has failed to appear and prosecute his Claim.

Based upon the foregoing and Claimant’s failure to prosecute this matter, the Claim is hereby dismissed pursuant to § 19(3) of the Court of Claims Act and the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims § 206.15.


November 10, 2008
Albany, New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims