At page 1380 Reversing denial of motion to proceed as poor person4 citing cases“although the determination whether to grant permission to proceed as a poor person lies within the sound discretion of the . . . court . . . , we conclude under the circumstances presented herein that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion”
- Eckert v. Meadows, 216 A.D.3d 1397 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2023).publishedWith respect to the potential merits of the action, a court "should merely satisfy itself that the [action] is not frivolous or, stated another way, that the [action] has arguable merit" ( Nicholas v Reason , 79 AD2d 1113, 1113 [4th Dept 1…
- Matter of Roesch v. McCulloch, 129 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published An application to proceed as a poor person should be granted if it " 'is not frivolous or, stated another way, . . . has arguable merit' " ( Matter of Young v Monroe County Clerk's Off. , 46 AD3d 1379, 1380 [4th Dept 2007]; see CPLR 1101 […
- Jefferson v. Stubbe, 107 A.D.3d 1424 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013).published Contrary to plaintiffs contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for permission to proceed as a poor person pursuant to CPLR 1101 (see generally Matter of Young v Monroe County Clerk’s Off., 46 AD3d 1379,…
- Popal v. Slovis, 82 A.D.3d 1670 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011).publishedWe agree with plaintiff that his action “is not frivolous or, stated another way, that the [action] has arguable merit” (Nicholas v Reason, 79 AD2d 1113 [1981]; see Matter of Young v Monroe County Clerk’s Off., 46 AD3d 1379 [2007]).
Other citing cases
- Popal, Farid v. Slovis, No. CA 10-00731 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Mar. 25, 2011).published
v.
Monroe County Clerk's Office
Appeal, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), dated November 27, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order, among other things, denied petitioner’s motion for permission to proceed as a poor person.
[*1380] It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is reinstated.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying his motion for permission to proceed as a poor person in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and deeming the “action” dismissed in the event that petitioner did not pay all applicable filing fees within 120 days of the filing of the order (see CPLR 1101 [a]). In denying the motion, Supreme Court noted that it had reviewed petitioner’s prison trust fund account statement. The record establishes that petitioner has a monthly income of $25 and has no assets. Furthermore, petitioner alleged in his CPLR article 78 petition that respondents failed or refused to provide him with a copy of an exhibit from his 1994 trial in response to his request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), and we conclude that petitioner’s allegation “is not frivolous or, stated another way, . . . has arguable merit” (Nicholas v Reason, 79 AD2d 1113 [1981]; see Bridges v University of Rochester [Strong Mem. Hosp.], 97 AD2d 942 [1983]). Although the determination whether to grant permission to proceed as a poor person lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Smith v Smith, 2 NY2d 120, 123 [1956]; Beckett v Beckett, 133 AD2d 968, 969 [1987], lv dismissed 71 NY2d 890 [1988]; Bridges, 97 AD2d 942 [1983]), we conclude under the circumstances presented herein that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Pine, JJ.