Opinion
# 2019-038-552 Claim No. 120674 Motion No. M-93529
06-19-2019
MICHAEL F. RAMSEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL F. RAMSEY, Pro se LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to enforce a judgment and for costs and sanctions granted in part to the extent that the Office of the Attorney General is sanctioned in the amount of $250.00 and denied in all other respects.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-038-552 |
| Claimant(s): | MICHAEL F. RAMSEY |
| Claimant short name: | RAMSEY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120674 |
| Motion number(s): | M-93529 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | MICHAEL F. RAMSEY, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 19, 2019 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim seeking compensation for wrongful confinement in keeplock at Green Haven Correctional Facility (CF) for 32 days commencing on August 16, 2011. Claimant moves to enforce the judgment of this Court awarding claimant $140.00 on his claim and other relief (see Ramsey v State of New York, UID No. 2018-038-102 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Jan. 12, 2018, filed Mar. 28, 2018]). Defendant opposes the motion.
Court of Claims Act § 20 (6) provides that "[n]o . . . judgment shall be paid until there shall be filed with the comptroller a copy thereof duly certified by the clerk of the court of claims together with a certificate of the attorney-general that no appeal has been or will be taken by the state from the judgment." In support of his motion, claimant recites that he had repeatedly contacted the Office of the Attorney General to secure a Certificate of No Appeal, but his requests went unanswered, prompting him to file this motion on February 11, 2019 seeking to enforce the judgment and other relief, including the imposition of costs and sanctions in prosecuting this motion. In response to this motion, defendant provided a Certificate of No Appeal, dated March 11, 2019, and argues that the issuance of the certificate renders claimant's motion moot. In reply, claimant argues that the motion is not moot inasmuch as the Court can award interest at 9% from the date of entry of judgment until March 11, 2019, and he claims that he "has incurred over $20.00 in expenses, for copies, writing paper and postage, in the prosecution of this motion" (Ramsey Correspondence, dated April 2, 2019, p.4).
That branch of claimant's motion seeking to enforce the judgment will be denied as moot as defendant belatedly provided claimant with the Notice of No Appeal that was necessary to enforce the judgment. To the extent that claimant asks the Court award him 9% interest from the date of entry until March 11, 2019, his request is unnecessary as the imposition of interest is governed by the Court of Claims Act, which provides that "[i]nterest shall be allowed on each judgment of the court of claims from the date therof until payment is actually made" (Court of Claims Act § 20 [7] [emphasis added]).
The Court of Claims Act also provides for the suspension of interest in the event that a claimant does not forward the Notice of No Appeal within 30 days of the mailing of the notice by the Attorney General to claimant (see Court of Claims Act § 20 [7][a]).
With respect to claimant's request for costs and sanctions, a court has the discretion to award costs "for actual expenses reasonably incurred . . . resulting from frivolous conduct" and to "impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct" (Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1 [a]). As relevant here, "conduct is frivolous if . . . it is completely without merit in law" or "it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation" (id., § 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2]). Part 130 of the Chief Administrator's Rules further provide in pertinent part:
"In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues, (1) the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct; and (2) whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party."
(id., §130-1.1 [c]).
In a decision dated January 12, 2018 and filed March 20, 2018, claimant was awarded damages in the amount of $140.00 for his unlawful confinement (see Ramsey v State of New York, UID No. 2018-038-102 [DeBow, J., Jan. 12, 2018, filed Mar. 20, 2018]), and judgment was entered and served on the Attorney General on March 28, 2018 (see Judgment, dated Mar. 28, 2018; Fazzone Correspondence, dated Mar. 28, 2018). After receiving the certified copy of the judgment that was entered on March 28, 2018, claimant sent the judgment and the Court's January 12, 2018 decision to the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) defending the claim, who failed to respond to claimant (see Ramsey Affidavit, ¶¶ 3-4). After having received no response from the AAG with a Certificate of No Appeal, claimant sent follow-up correspondence to the AAG inquiring whether defendant intended to appeal, which similarly went unanswered (see id., ¶ 4-5). Having received no response from the AAG, claimant corresponded with the Office of the State Comptroller and was informed that he must secure from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) a Certificate of No Appeal prior to the judgment being paid (see id., ¶¶ 5-6). On October 12, 2018, claimant sent ex parte correspondence to the Court advising the Court that the OAG had not produced the Certificate of No Appeal and seeking guidance from the Court in securing payment of the judgment (see Ramsey Affidavit, ¶ 7; id., Ramsey letter, dated Oct. 12, 2018, attached). Nancy Schulman, Principal Law Clerk to the undersigned, responded to claimant in correspondence dated October 24, 2018 by noting that while claimant's ex parte correspondence would ordinarily be returned due to claimant's failure to copy the AAG on the correspondence, she would send a copy of his letter to the AAG defending the claim as a one-time courtesy, and the AAG was so copied (id., Schulman Correspondence, dated Oct. 24, 2018, attached). After having received no further response from the AAG, claimant advised Schulman in writing on December 12, 2018, with a copy to the AAG, that he had still not received the Certificate of No Appeal from the OAG (id., Ramsey Correspondence, dated Dec. 12, 2018, attached). In correspondence dated December 21, 2018 addressed to the AAG, Schulman drew the AAG's attention to her October 24, 2018 correspondence and its enclosure and requested that the AAG respond to claimant regarding the judgment (id., Schulman Correspondence, dated Dec. 21, 2018, attached). Claimant filed the instant motion on February 11, 2019 after having received no response from defendant. As noted above, defendant responded to claimant's motion by issuing the Certificate of No Appeal on March 11, 2019, but did not offer any reason for the lengthy delay in providing the Certificate of No Appeal or for its failure to respond to claimant's inquiries or the Court's October 24, 2018 and December 12, 2018 communications. Moreover, defendant has failed to offer any argument in opposition to claimant's request for costs and sanctions.
Based upon the record before it, and in the absence of any explanation or excuses from defendant as to its untimely issuance of the Certificate of No Appeal and any argument from defendant regarding claimant's request for costs and sanctions, the Court concludes that the OAG has engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of Part 130 of the Chief Administrator's Rules in failing to timely provide claimant with a Certificate of No Appeal, for the reasons that follow. The judgment in this matter was entered and personally served on the Attorney General by the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims on March 28, 2018, and thus any notice of appeal was required to have been filed with the Court on or before April 27, 2018 (see Court of Claims Act § 25; see also CPLR 5513 [a]; 5515 [1]). However, the Court's file contains no notice of appeal, and thus the OAG was aware, or reasonably should have been aware as of April 30, 2018 that the Court's judgment could not be appealed. Notwithstanding that the OAG should have shortly thereafter issued a Certificate of No Appeal to permit claimant to satisfy the judgment, it repeatedly ignored over the course of many months multiple entreaties from claimant and Court correspondence alerting it that claimant was seeking the Certificate of No Appeal to satisfy the judgment. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court determines that the OAG's conduct in repeatedly dismissing over many months the several attempts to secure the Certificate of No Appeal, all while lacking a good faith basis to deny issuance of the Certificate, was frivolous (see Presbyterian Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 188 AD2d 646, 647 [2d Dept 1992] [defendant's conduct in that served to delay payment in a fully litigated arbitration award was sanctionable]; see also Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v Roth, 78 NY2d 306, 308 [1991] [conduct intended to delay enforcement of a foreign judgment sanctionable]; Levy v Carol Mgt. Corp., 260 AD2d 27, 34 [1st Dept 1999] [conduct "intended only to delay enforcement of (a) judgment() is a valid basis for sanctions"]).
April 27, 2018 fell on a Friday, so the first business day after the expiration of the 30-day period to file a notice of appeal would have been April 30, 2018.
Notwithstanding that claimant has demonstrated that defendant's conduct was frivolous, it will not grant claimant costs as he has failed to append receipts or other documentation demonstrating his actual disbursements (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [a] ["actual expenses"]). The Court will, however, exercise its discretion and grant that part of claimant's motion that seeks sanctions and determines that the OAG shall be sanctioned in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00), and it is directed to deposit such sum with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.3).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M-93529 is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that the Office of the Attorney General is hereby sanctioned in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00), and it is directed to deposit such sum with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection; and it is further
ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M-93529 is DENIED in all other respects.
June 19, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Notice of Motion, dated January 31, 2019; (2) Affidavit of Michael F. Ramsey, sworn to February 6, 2019, with attachments, including: (a) Correspondence of Michael F. Ramsey, dated October 12, 2018; (b) Correspondence of Nancy Schulman, Principal Law Clerk, dated October 24, 2018; (c) Correspondence of Michael F. Ramsey, dated December 12, 2018; (d) Correspondence of Nancy Schulman, Principal Law Clerk, dated December 21, 2018; (3) Affirmation of Jeane L. Strickland, AAG, dated March 26, 2019, with Exhibit A; (4) Correspondence of Michael F. Ramsey, dated April 2, 2019; (5) Decision in Ramsey v State of New York, UID No. 2018-038-102 (DeBow, J., Jan. 12, 2018, filed Mar. 20, 2018); (6) Judgment in Ramsey v State of New York, Claim No. 120674, entered March 28, 2018; (7) Correspondence of Eileen F. Fazzone, Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims, dated March 28, Page 2018