Opinion
# 2016-018-755 Claim No. 126660 Motion No. M-89286 Cross-Motion No. CM-89379
12-02-2016
MICHAEL MATTHEWS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL MATTHEWS Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant brings motion to reargue a prior motion. Defendant opposes brings cross-motion for the imposition of sanctions. Motion and cross-motion DENIED.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-018-755 |
| Claimant(s): | MICHAEL MATTHEWS |
| Claimant short name: | MATTHEWS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126660 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89286 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-89379 |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | MICHAEL MATTHEWS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 2, 2016 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant brings a motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 to reargue a prior motion seeking permission to file a late claim which was denied by a Decision and Order dated July 20, 2016 and requests my recusal for bias. Defendant opposes the motion and brings a cross-motion for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR section 130-1.1.
Matthews v State of New York, UID No. 2016-018-727 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J. July 20, 2016].
Claimant filed a claim on August 31, 2015, seeking $500 billion in damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and "conflict of spiritual enlightenment" for the State's alleged fraud, obstruction of governmental procedure, unlawful imprisonment, violation of due process, duress, and discrimination. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim for failure to serve the claim in accordance with the Court of Claims Act, and submitted the envelope in which it asserts the claim was received showing only regular mail, postmarked August 27, 2015. In response to the motion, Claimant submitted a certified mail receipt card, stamped as received by the Attorney General's Office, however, it is postmarked a day before Claimant signed his claim. As a result, the Court found that Claimant had not presented sufficient evidence to establish proper service and dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Matthews v State of New York, UID No. 2016-018-716 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J. Feb. 29, 2016].
Thereafter, Claimant filed a motion seeking permission to reargue and file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 10 (6). The Court denied the motion for lack of a reasonable excuse for untimely proper service and filing of a claim and lack of the appearance of potential merit. It is this motion that Claimant now seeks to reargue on the grounds that the Court misconstrued the law, overlooked the fact that both parties made clerical errors and mutual mistakes, and Claimant was provided with a faulty form. Claimant also alleges that the Court was biased and seeks my recusal from hearing the case.
Addressing the recusal request first, Claimant alleges my recusal is required because I have been biased in utilizing a decision procured through fraud. Claimant alleges, as evidence of my bias, my reliance on the decisions in the habeas corpus proceedings in Supreme Court noting my willingness to "apply that error laden [sic] Decision." The Court denies Claimant's request for recusal. When recusal is not mandatory by statute (Judiciary Law § 14), it is discretionary (Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp. [Fallsite, LLC], 94 AD3d 1545 [4th Dept 2012]; Colburn v Blum, 233 AD2d 890 [4th Dept 1996]). The Court's recusal is not mandatory as I am not related by consanguinity, affinity, or interest to any person involved in this controversy. In my discretion I will not recuse, because I have no bias toward Claimant, his claim, Defendant, or the Assistant Attorney General assigned to represent the State on this case. I was unaware of Claimant's race at the time of the prior Decision and Order, and would not know now if Claimant had not indicated his race in his motion.
Matthews v Supt. of Downstate Corr. Facility, Sup Ct, Dutchess County, Sept. 8, 2015, Forman, J., Index No. 1699/2015; Matthews v Sheahan, Sup Ct, Seneca County, Aug. 3, 2015, Bender, Acting Sup Ct J., Index No. 49386.
The CPLR 2221 (c) sets forth the requirements for a motion to reargue: the motion must be specifically identified as one to reargue; it must be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the Court in determining the prior motion, but it must not include matters of law or fact available, but not offered on the prior motion; and the motion must be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order. A motion is made when it is served (CPLR § 2211). The Decision and Order which Claimant seeks to reargue was filed on August 19, 2016, and a Notice of Entry was signed on September 8, 2016, it is not clear when it was served upon Claimant. It is also not clear when Claimant served his motion, but it was filed on September 21, 2016. Since Defendant has not raised an issue with timeliness, the Court will consider the motion for reargument of the prior motion Decision and Order dated July 20, 2016 timely.
After reviewing Claimant's submissions, the Court denies Claimant's request to reargue his late claim motion. The Court did not overlook or misapprehend any facts or law that would require the Court to reconsider or change its prior determination.
The Court also denies Defendant's request for sanctions pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [22 NYCRR] section 130-1.1. This rule authorizes the Court to impose sanctions and award costs and attorneys fees for frivolous conduct. The rule defines frivolous conduct as: (1) conduct completely without merit in law which cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) conduct that is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong litigation or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts a material false factual statement. Although questionable, the Court does not find that Claimant's conduct in bringing the motion was undertaken to delay, prolong, harass or injure the State. Rather, the Court finds that Claimant firmly believes his position and entitlement to the relief requested.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, Claimant's motion and Defendant's cross-motion are DENIED.
December 2, 2016
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following documents in deciding these motions:
M-89286
1) Notice of Motion. 2) Affidavit of Michael Matthews, sworn to September 16, 2016, in support, with attachments thereto.
CM-89379
3) Notice of cross-motion. 4) Affirmation of Ray A. Kyles, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in opposition to Claimant's motion, and in support of Defendant's cross-motion, with exhibits attached thereto. 5) Reply of Claimant, Michael Matthews, sworn to October 28, 2016, in opposition, with exhibits attached thereto.