STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
GEORGE J. JUBIC,
Appellant, RESPONSE TO RESPONDANTS REPLY
V. Docket # 510140
ROBERT JUBIC and ROBERT McALLISTER,
I George Jubic, aka George M. Jubic, Jr., am the appellant in the above mentioned case and
1. On or about July 23, 2010 I did submit to this court an application to proceed on appeal as a poor person from a decision and order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer County dated May 17, 2010, a copy of said Order was included with the application.
2. A copy of the application was forwarded by regular mail to the attorney for defendants Mr. Michael Mansion, as well as a copy sent to the office of the Rensselaer County Attorney.
3. By letter dated _____________________, this court acknowledged receipt of said application and issued a return date of August 23, 2010.
4. On or about the 18th day of august, 2010, I did receive a reply in opposition from Jill A. Kehn, an attorney assigned to represent the Rensselaer County Attorneys office, and on or about that same time I did also receive a reply in opposition from the attorney for the defendants, Mr. Michael Mansion.
5. I am submitting this response to the replies in opposition on the grounds that both Ms. Kehn and Mr. Mansion have mis-construed the application as being something that it is not, as well as to clear up some other false, erroneous and/or otherwise mis-leading statements contained in their respective replies that I believe will only confuse or cloud the issue.
THE REPLY FROM MS KEHN OF THE RENSSELAER CO. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
6. In the reply from Ms Kehn of the Rensselaer Co. Attorneys Office, it is stated, in relevant part, that “Mr. Jubic is seeking counsel for an appeal of a final order of the Rensselear County Supreme Court dismissing his causes of action for an accounting of partnership funds, dissolution of partnership property, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud and unjust enrichment.” (See Respondent Kehns reply, paragraph 3)
7. The first error in Ms Kehan reply is that I DO NOT seek appointment of counsel for the purpose of appeal. The sole purpose of my application to this court for permission to appeal as a poor person is for a waiver of the fees. It is my intention to perfect the appeal in my capacity as a pro se litigant.
8. In her reply, Ms Kehan states, in relevant part, …”in addition, the issue of assigned counsel was also reviewed by the trial court. In its Order & Decision dated June 16, 2009, the court denied the appellants request for the assignment of counsel on the grounds that the appellant failed to demonstrate the merits of his case.” (See Kehan reply, para. 5)
9. While it is true I did make application to the trail court for assignment of counsel after my private attorney had been permanently dis-barred, to the best of my recollection and belief the application for assignment of trial counsel was denied on the basis of the courts stated belief that it lacked the authority to assign counsel in this case, being that no “personal freedoms” were involved.
10. Ms Kehns also opposed my application to proceed on appeal as a poor person on the grounds, as so stated, in relevant part,….”The onus is placed upon the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of his designation as a poor person. He has failed to meet that burden (para 7) and in asking that my application be denied. Ms Kehn also added that …“In the absence of the applicants clear demonstration of his poverty ……this court should deny the application.“ (para 8)
11. While Ms Kehn suggests that I have failed in my burden to prove my indigency, I would ask the court to make note of the fact that I submitted my application for permission to proceed as a poor person on the documents provided to me by this court, and have honestly answered all of the questions therein pertaining to my financial condition. I also indicated in those same forms provided to me by this court, that I am currently in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy which also supports my claim of indigency.
MR. MANSION, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS REPLY
12. Upon a reading of the reply from Mr. Mansion, the attorney for the Defendants, it is clear that Mr. Mansion also mis-construes my application for permission to appeal as a poor person as an application for assignment of counsel on appeal (see Mansion reply para 6)
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons as mention above, both the replies in opposition to my application for permission to appeal to this court as a poor person should be disregarded, as I pray this court to grant me poor person status for the sole purpose of waiving the filing fees, and for any other further relief this court may deem just and / or necessary.
George J. Jubic, Appellant, Pro Se
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I George J. Jubic, do hereby swear in lieu of Notary and under threat of penalty for perjury, that I have on this 1st day of September, 2010, duly fax over a copy of this Response to Respondents Replies to the following concerned parties:
Clerk of the Court , Supreme Ct. Appellate Div.3rd. Dept. at fax # (518) 471-4750
Mr. Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants at fax # ___________________
Ms. Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney at fax # (518) 270-2954
And have also sent hard copies out this same day to the same concerned parties at these addresses:
Clerk of the Court Michael P Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1523 Central Ave.
Albany, NY ___________
Supreme Court Appellate Division 1528 Central Av.
3rd Dept. Box 7288 Albany, NY 12205
Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney
Ned Pattison Gov’t Center
1600 Seventh Ave.
Troy, NY 12180