New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DAVIS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-045-018, Claim No. 114692, Motion No. M-74513


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-045-018
Claimant(s):
SAMUEL DAVIS
Claimant short name:
DAVIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114692
Motion number(s):
M-74513
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Samuel Davis, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 15, 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 “Petition for Permission to Proceed as a Poor Person [with/including request that attorney be assigned], Claimant’s Affidavit, Claimant’s Memorandum of Law, Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition, Claimant’s Affidavit of Service filed February 22, 2008, Claimant’s letter to the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims filed February 28, 2008 with annexed Exhibit and the filed Claim.

Claimant, Samuel Davis, 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 contains various allegations of wrongdoing against defendant, the State of New York, which occurred while claimant was incarcerated at the Southport Correctional Facility.

By prior order of the Honorable Richard E. Sise, filed January 23, 2008, 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.[1]

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

April 15, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

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




[1].Although claimant’s case was turned down by one law firm there are numerous firms in the area which may decide to represent claimant in this matter.