Opinion
# 2017-038-506 Claim No. 116678 Motion No. M-89291
01-13-2017
RONALD-EDWARD:WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
RONALD-EDWARD:WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to amend the amended claim denied. Proposed amendments consisted mainly of Latin phrases that bore no discernable merit or relation to the amended claim for wrongful confinement in keeplock and claimant did not support his motion with any explanation of relevance or necessity of the amendments.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-038-506 |
| Claimant(s): | RONALD-EDWARD:WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 116678 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89291 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | RONALD-EDWARD:WILLIAMS, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 13, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual formerly incarcerated in a State correctional facility, has filed a claim and an amended claim seeking damages for wrongful excessive confinement in keeplock. Claimant now seeks permission to amend the amended claim, which defendant opposes.
CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his . . . pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences. . ." Leave to amend a claim should be freely given "unless the proposed amendments plainly lack merit or would cause the nonmoving party to suffer prejudice or unfair surprise" (Bastian v State of New York, 8 AD3d 764, 765 [3d Dept 2004]; see Matter of Miller v Goord, 1 AD3d 647, 648 [3d Dept 2003]; Acker v Garson, 306 AD2d 609, 610 [3d Dept 2003]). Whether to grant such relief is a matter committed to the discretion of the court (see Thibeault v Palma, 266 AD2d 616, 617 [3d Dept 1999]).
Claimant's previous motion to amend the claim was granted (see Williams v State of New York, UID No. 2015-038-552 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J. unpublished decision dated October 9, 2015, filed January 27, 2016]), and he filed the amended claim on February 29, 2016. In support of the instant motion, claimant has submitted a copy of the proposed second amended pleading, which he has styled as an "Amended Complaint with Delcaration [sic] in Verification" (Williams Affidavit, Exhibit EREW) and a copy of the amended claim as filed. The proposed amended claim that is submitted with the motion appears to add five paragraphs to the end of the amended claim, three of which are Latin phrases, that read as follows:
"17. Fiat justitia ruat caelum;
"Let right be done, though the heavens should fall" (Black's Law Dictionary 623 [6th ed]).
"18. Judex ante oculos aequitatem semper habere debet;
"A Judge ought always have equity before his eyes" (id., at 840).
"19. Lex semper dabit remedium;
"The law will always give a remedy" (id., at 913).
"20. So be it;
"21. Further, Executor for Williams' Estate sayeth naught:"
(id., at p.6]). It also appears that the proposed amended claim deletes the seventeenth paragraph of the amended claim, which asserts that claimant had "nothing further to state at this time" (Amended "Complaint" with Delcaration in Verification, filed Feb. 29, 2016, ¶ 17). Defendant opposes the motion because it "does not understand the significance of the Latin phrases claimant seeks to include in the amendment and the 'so be it' phrase appears superfluous, thus the necessity of the amendment is dubious" (King Affirmation, ¶ 5). Defendant further argues that "it is unclear how the proposed amendment would be considered 'additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences' " (id., citing Bastian v State of New York, 8 AD3d 764 [3d Dept 2004]).
The proposed amendments include neither new facts nor new legal theories or causes of action, leaving both the Court and defendant to speculate as to the purpose and merit of these proposed amendments. Claimant's motion papers offer no reason why he seeks to add the proposed amendments or why they may be necessary or even relevant to the claim, and the Court can discern none. The proposed amendments add nothing of substance to the claim, and, to the extent that claimant may believe that they do, prejudice to defendant in defending the claim with the proposed amendments arises as evidenced by its candid and reasonable acknowledgment that it does not understand the meaning or purpose of those amendments. Claimant has previously amended the claim with the Court's permission, and he offers nothing to dispel the view that the proposed paragraphs, which contain nothing of temporal import, could not have been included in his first motion to amend the claim. While mindful that permission to amend a claim should be freely granted, the Court finds nothing in claimant's motion that warrants an exercise of discretion to grant permission for the proposed second amendment of the claim.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M-89291 is DENIED.
January 13, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Claim No. 116678, with Exhibits, filed April 8, 2009; (2) Verified Answer, filed May 12, 2009; (3) Decision and Order in Williams v State of New York, UID No. 2015-038-552 (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., unpublished decision dated October 9, 2015, filed January 27, 2016); (4) Amended "Complaint" with Delcaration [sic] in Verification, filed February 29, 2016; (5) Verified Answer, filed April 8, 2016; (6) Notice to Amend Complaint, dated April 7, 2016; (7) Affidavit of Executor-Ronald-Edward-Williams in Support of Notice of Claim to Amend Complaint, sworn to May 19, 2016, with Exhibits EREW 1-EREW2; (8) Affirmation of Glen C. King, AAG, in Opposition, dated October 20, 2016.