Opinion
# 2019-028-507 Claim No. 83762 Motion No. M-93100
02-27-2019
MICHAEL TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL TAYLOR, PRO SE HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: No Appearance
Synopsis
Motion to vacate a prior order denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-028-507 |
| Claimant(s): | MICHAEL TAYLOR |
| Claimant short name: | TAYLOR |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 83762 |
| Motion number(s): | M-93100 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | RICHARD E. SISE |
| Claimant’s attorney: | MICHAEL TAYLOR, PRO SE |
| Defendant’s attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: No Appearance |
| Third-party defendant’s attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 27, 2019 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read on Claimant’s motion to vacate an order of dismissal:
1. Notice of Motion dated November 4, 2018;
2. Memorandum of Law dated November 2, 2018 with Exhibits A-B annexed.
The claim in this action, based on a slip and fall in a cell at Fishkill Correctional Facility, was dismissed in December 1992 when claimant failed to appear for trial. Claimant has now moved to, among other things, vacate the order of dismissal. Claimant argues that the order should be set aside because it was issued in violation of lawful procedure in that the State failed to furnish an attorney to prosecute the claim on his behalf.
Under New York statutory law the court may relieve a party of the effects of a judgment or order upon any of five stated grounds (CPLR 5015) but none of those grounds apply upon the facts of this case. Nonetheless, in an apparent attempt to avoid that consequence, claimant relies on an analogous New Jersey rule which affords broader relief including vacature for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order” (N.J. Ct. R 4:50-1 [f]). In arguing for application of the New Jersey rule, claimant cites Allstate Insurance Co. v Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981), a case that deals with choice-of-law issues. Claimant argues, relying on the standard applied in the Allstate case, that it would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to apply the New Jersey rule here because the State of New Jersey does business in the State of New York through the New Jersey Transit Authority thereby creating a significant aggregation of contacts and state interest. The argument is misplaced. As the court in the Allstate case noted, the choice-of-law doctrine applies to matters of substantive law. Matters of procedural law, such as the vacature of an order raised here, are governed by the laws of the place where the suit is brought (United States Mtge. & Trust Co. v Ruggles, 258 NY 32, 40 [1932]; (RMS Partners Tivoli Co. v Uccellini, 249 AD2d 788, 791 [3d Dept 1998]; Able Cycle Engines, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 84 AD2d 140, 147 [2d Dept 1981]). Thus, CPLR 5015, the New York rule, governs. As claimant has failed to establish any basis provided by that statute for vacating the order of dismissal, the motion should be denied. As a result, the other matters raised by the motion are moot.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the motion is denied.
February 27, 2019
Albany , New York
RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims