State v. Kostyshyn

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiff, v. PETER…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Date published: Sep 2, 2015

C.A. No.: N14C-10-174 FSS (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 2, 2015)

Opinion

C.A. No.: N14C-10-174 FSS

09-02-2015

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiff, v. PETER KOSTYSHYN, Defendant.

cc: Prothonotary (Civil) Oliver J. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General Peter Kostyshyn, pro se Defendant - via First Class Mail

Fred S. Silverman Judge

ORDER

Upon Defendant's "Motions of Reargument, for Appointment of Counsel" - REJECTED

1. Following a default judgment entered March 13, 2015,¹ on July 28 and 30, 2015 Plaintiff issued process to levy on Defendant's property in the above-captioned matter.

1 See Kostyshyn v. State, 115 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2015) (TABLE) (dismissing Kostyshyn's appeal for failing to prosecute "by refusing to comply with the Court's . . . directive").

2. The levy was served August 11, 2015.

3. On August 20, 2015, Defendant filed the above captioned-motion, which is largely illegible and unintelligible. It is also insulting.

4. As best as the court can tell, the motion asks for "an emergency injunction staying and setting aside the sales of all Kostyshyn properties and for an evidentiary hearing." It also asks for an order to the State of Delaware to return money to Defendant and to order the New Castle County Sheriff to explain something about an attempted redemption of 1131 W. 4^th Street.

5. The time for reargument of any order in the above-captioned case has passed. This court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction. There is no reason given that justifies a hearing. The court believes that the attempted redemption concerns another case, perhaps a monition.² Otherwise, the motion is almost incomprehensible.

2 See The City of Wilmington v. Kostyshyn, C.A. No.: N13J-01724 (Del. Super. Aug. 13, 2015) (ORDER).

6. As to appointment of counsel, the record establishes that Defendant has assets, and appointment of counsel at other people's expense is unjustified.³ The court further observes that Defendant's unwillingness to hire counsel to address the complicated issues in the civil litigation involving him and his properties, coupled with Defendant's insistence on doing as he pleases instead of what is required, is working to his detriment. A lawyer could have easily prevented the default judgment in the first place, and even now a lawyer could reduce Defendant's exposure, but that is merely the court's observation.

3 See 1401 Condo. Ass'n v. Kostyshyn, C.A. No.: N12J-03588 (Del. Super. May 30, 2014) (ORDER). --------

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's illegible and unintelligible motion is out of order, and it is REJECTED. The Prothonotary SHALL docket it for record purposes only.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 2, 2015

/s/ Fred S. Silverman

Judge cc: Prothonotary (Civil)

Oliver J. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General

Peter Kostyshyn, pro se Defendant - via First Class Mail