Opinion
# 2019-054-046 Claim No. 131356 Motion No. M-93982
06-21-2019
DIANE WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DIANE WORD Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York No Appearance
Synopsis
Claimant seeks a remedy the Court cannot provide and is cautioned about frivolous and sanctionable motion practice.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-054-046 |
| Claimant(s): | DIANE WORD |
| Claimant short name: | WORD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131356 |
| Motion number(s): | M-93982 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | WALTER RIVERA |
| Claimant's attorney: | DIANE WORD Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York No Appearance |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 21, 2019 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for clarification:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit
Defendant's opposition papers to claimant's motion were fax filed with the Court and mailed to claimant on the return date of the motion, without excuse or explanation, and therefore were untimely and not considered by the Court (see CPLR 2214 (b); 2214 (c); Kubicsko v Westchester County Elec., Inc. 116 AD3d 737 [2d Dept 2016; Mosheyeva v Distefano, 288 AD2d 448 [2d Dept 2001]).
Claimant brings this motion for "clarification" of this Court's Decision and Order filed-stamped July 5, 2018 (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-065 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 20, 2018]), which granted defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 131356 on jurisdictional grounds. In her affidavit, claimant asks the Court for "clarification of whether New York State Clean Indoor Air Act is applicable to a theory of State's liability to provide a smoke free environment in State prisons, can be a relief to Pro Se claimant that can also be reviewed by A D 3 Dept."
Claimant's application to the Court has no basis in law and the Court is without any authority to offer claimant any legal advice.
Claimant is reminded, yet again, that sanctionable conduct is such that "is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]), and that further frivolous motion practice may subject claimant to monetary sanctions (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]; [d]; 22 NYCRR § 130-1.2; Word v State of New York, UID No. 2019-054-014 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., April 3, 2019]). Further, under the particular circumstances of this case, where the Court has addressed claimant's present motion for "clarification" of this Court's Decision and Order filed-stamped July 5, 2018 (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-065 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 20, 2018]), which granted defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 131356 on jurisdictional grounds and claimant's four previous motions seeking reargument (Motion No. M-92553) and renewal (Motion Nos. M-92849, M-93093 and M-93478) of the same Decision and Order, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to reject and return to claimant any motions made by claimant regarding the dismissal of Claim No. 131356.
Accordingly, claimant's motion is DENIED.
June 21, 2019
White Plains, New York
WALTER RIVERA
Judge of the Court of Claims