Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Melanie SNUSZKI, as Administrator of the Estate of Peggy Anne Bannach Wright, Deceased, for Benefit of Ian Wright and Melanie Snuszki, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of State of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.
Defendant, an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility, was convicted of murder in the second degree for causing the death of his estranged wife, Peggy Anne Bannach Wright (decedent), in 1988. Plaintiff, the daughter of decedent and administrator of decedent's estate, commenced this action pursuant to Executive Law article 22 seeking to recover, as compensation for decedent's wrongful death, funds received by defendant in settlement of an action against employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his request for assignment of an attorney (see Wills v. City of Troy, 258 A.D.2d 849, 686 N.Y.S.2d 154, lv. dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 1000, 695 N.Y.S.2d 745, 717 N.E.2d 1082; Morgenthau v. Garcia, 148 Misc.2d 900, 903-904, 561 N.Y.S.2d 867). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the award of $1 million to plaintiff and her brother does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for past and future loss of parental guidance (see CPLR 5501[c]; Adderley v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 485, 486, 757 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 511, 766 N.Y.S.2d 165, 798 N.E.2d 349). Defendant's remaining contentions were raised and decided in a prior appeal in this action (see Snuszki v. Wright, 1 A.D.3d 879, 767 N.Y.S.2d 749, appeal dismissed 1 N.Y.3d 623, 777 N.Y.S.2d 21, 808 N.E.2d 1280) and reconsideration of those contentions is thus foreclosed (see Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 224 A.D.2d 15, 19, 646 N.Y.S.2d 741, appeal dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 860, 653 N.Y.S.2d 281, 675 N.E.2d 1234, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 811, 657 N.Y.S.2d 403, 679 N.E.2d 642).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)