Preview:

Napolitano v New York State Grievance Comm. (2005 NY Slip Op 50982(U))
[*1]


Decided on May 6, 2005
Court of Claims

110140
Claimant's attorney:John J. Napolitano, pro se
Defendant's attorney:Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General by Ellen Matowik, Assistant Attorney General
Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.
Claimant is an attorney who was suspended from the practice of law twice, the first time in 1997 and the second time in 2001, with the suspension on the latter occasion running for three years (see Matter of Napolitano, 232 AD2d 51; and Matter of Napolitano, 282 AD2d 130). His license to practice law was apparently reinstated on October 15, 2004.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2005_50982.htm[4/21/2013 2:28:02 PM] Napolitano v New York State Grievance Comm. (2005 NY Slip Op 50982(U))
On November 24, 2004, claimant filed the instant claim, seeking damages of one billion dollars. Paragraph 2 of the claim alleges as follows:
This claim arises from the acts or omissions of defendant. Details of said acts or omissions are as follows . . . : SEE PAPERS ATTACHED
MORE SPECIFIC, THE AFFIRMATION IN EXHIBIT B DATED 1/30/03 AND 1/30/03.
LOSS OF LAW LICENSE ON TWO SUSPENSION FOR A TOTAL OF SEVEN YEARS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING;
1.
"Renounced Agreement" on which there was reliance and damages

2.
VINDICTIVENESS

3.
Malicious abuse of one's position and authority and power

4.
Lack of due process and unconstitutional conduct

5.
Obstruction of Justice

6.
Malicious intent to destory one's livelihood and practice (Malicious prosecution and [*2]misconduct)

7.
Extortion to withdraw renewal application or 3rd pary to be brought in

8.
Violation of the "EAUAL PROTECTION & RIGHTS" guaranteed by the Constitution


Attached to the claim are perhaps 70 to 80 pages of correspondence sent by claimant to the disciplinary committee over the years which apparently the reader is referred to for an explanation of what is contained in the claim.
Defendant's motion to dismiss must be granted and claimant's cross-motion for permission to late file must be denied for essentially the same reasons:
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2005_50982.htm[4/21/2013 2:28:02 PM]
Napolitano v New York State Grievance Comm. (2005 NY Slip Op 50982(U))
1.
The claim was interposed way beyond the expiration of any applicable limitations period contained in Court of Claims Act

Download 2005_50982.pdf

New York Law