Source: http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2003-030-557.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-15 01:57:56
Document Index: 289953975

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1101', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§1101', '§ 1101', '§ 1102']

ARCE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-557, Claim No. 107192, Motion No. M-66704
Pro se inmate's motion for appointment of counsel denied. Claim asserts causes of action for wrongful confinement, use of excessive force, inadequate medical treatment and denial of due process.
2003-030-557
M-66704
The following papers, numbered 1 to 9, were read on Claimant's motion for the appointment of
1-5	Notice of Motion; Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Affidavits in Support of Julio Arce, Claimant, dated April 2, 2003 and April 9, 2003; Memorandum of Law
Letter from Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General, dated May 14, 2003
7-9	Filed Papers: Claim, Answer[1], Affidavit in Support of Application pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §1101(f)
The claim was filed after enactment of Court of Claims Act § 11-a requiring a filing fee of $50.00. [See, Court of Claims Act § 11-a(1), effective December 7, 1999]. By Order of this Court, Claimant's filing fee was reduced pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §1101(f).
(Sise, J., filed February 3, 2003).
In the Affidavit in Support of his 1101(f) application, Claimant indicates that he has income from his visitors only, without specifying an amount, income from prison wages, and owns no property.
Additionally, while it appears the Attorney General's office was served with a copy of this application, there is no indication that the appropriate county attorney's office has been served. Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1101(c) ; Bowman v State of New York, 229 AD2d 1024 (4th Dept 1996). This alone necessitates denial of the application. Additionally, since the filing fee has already been addressed, prosecuting the matter in this Court does not require Claimant to pay any further costs or fees. To the extent Claimant may need to mail papers to the Defendant or the Court, limited free postage is available at the correctional facility, as well as advances for legal mail if the inmate has insufficient funds.
Claimant also seeks appointment of counsel. Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1102(a). Such relief is generally not available in civil cases, and is discretionary. Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433 (1975). Courts should not routinely assign counsel without compensation except in a "proper case" [Matter of Smiley, supra, at 441]; "...which would include cases where indigent civil litigants face grievous forfeiture or loss of a fundamental right." Morgenthau v Garcia, 148 Misc 2d 900, 903 (Sup Ct NY Co 1990).
In this case, the Claim asserts that the Defendant's agents used excessive force to restrain Claimant while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He also claims he was wrongfully confined, denied due process, and given inadequate medical treatment. Unfortunately, these are all fairly routine assertions made in claims against the State. The actual facts asserted in the claim primarily address the claim of excessive force: not an unusual cause of action. After carefully reviewing the Claim and the papers submitted in support of this motion, the Court finds Claimant has not demonstrated that his is a "proper case" warranting the appointment of counsel at public expense.
Accordingly, Motion No. M-66704 is denied in its entirety.
[1]An Answer bearing Claim number 107192 was filed by the Attorney General's Office on May 1, 2003. It does not appear to be responsive to the Claim filed on January 13, 2003.