New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BOYD v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-045-011, Claim No. 114559, Motion No. M-74429


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-045-011
Claimant(s):
TALEEK BOYD
Claimant short name:
BOYD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114559
Motion number(s):
M-74429
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Taleek Boyd, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 3, 2008
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant’s Affidavit in Support, Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition and the filed claim.

Claimant, Taleek Boyd, a pro se litigant, has brought this motion pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 1101 seeking an order granting him poor person status and assigning counsel to represent him in this matter. The underlying claim concerns allegations that claimant was assaulted by two employees of defendant, the State of New York, while he was incarcerated at the Southport Correctional Facility.

By prior order of the Honorable Richard E. Sise, filed December 28, 2007, claimant received a reduction in the filing fee in this case but was not granted poor person status in the prosecution of this matter. Even assuming that claimant had been granted poor person status he is not entitled to the assignment of an attorney in this action. The appointment of an attorney is generally not available to civil litigants and would be inappropriate in this action given the allegations contained in the filed claim (see Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433 [1975]).

Additionally, claims similar to those presented by claimant are typically handled by attorneys on a contingency fee basis. This affords claimant the opportunity to be represented by counsel without incurring any expenses unless he recovers an award in his favor.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant’s motion for an assignment of counsel is denied.


March 3, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

HON. GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims