Motion for recusal was denied.
|Claimant short name:||KOEHL|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claim number(s):||113877, 114945|
|Motion number(s):||M-77490, M-77491|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Edward Koehl, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire and Michael C. Rizzo, Esquire
Assistant Attorneys General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||March 10, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for recusal in claim numbers 113877 (Motion No. M-77490) and 114945 (Motion No. 77491).
The first motion (M-77490) relating to claim number 113877 is based on this Court's denial of the claimant's motions for summary judgment and reargument. In that claim, claimant alleges the destruction of certain items of personal property during the course of a cell search. The Court denied claimant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claimant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because he offered "no evidence beyond his own unsubstantiated allegations to establish both that he owned the property which he claims was damaged during the defendant's search of his cell and its fair market value" (Koehl v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 4, 2009 [Claim No. 113877, Motion No. M-76161] Collins, J. unreported). The Court also noted, in any event, that the defendant met its burden of producing evidence indicating that the loss or destruction of the claimant's property was not its fault, thereby raising questions of fact requiring a trial (id.). Claimant's motion for reargument was denied as the claimant failed to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law (see CPLR 2221 [d] ). The second motion (M-77491) relating to claim number 114945 is based on this Court's denial of the claimant's motions to compel discovery and for reargument. The order denying the motion was based on defense counsel's representation that claimant had been provided with a complete response to all demands for discovery, which consisted of approximately 14 inches of documents. To the extent claimant sought the production of the confidential records of the Inspector General, the Court found the demand was overly broad and improper under the circumstances of the case. Claimant's motion for reargument was denied as the claimant failed to establish the criteria necessary to warrant that relief (see CPLR 2221 [d] ).
Recusal is required in any proceeding in which a Judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to those instances set forth in § 100.3 (E) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. None of the circumstances set forth in that section require recusal nor has the claimant pointed to any ruling establishing bias (see R & R Capital LLC v Merritt, 56 AD3d 370 ; Solow v Wellner, 157 AD2d 459 ; Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 AD2d 577 ).
Accordingly, claimant's motions (Motion Nos. M-77490 and M-77491) are denied.
March 10, 2010
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
Claim No. 113877, Motion No. M-77490
Claim No. 114945, Motion No. M-77491