Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-04642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators, Judge Halpern denied reconsideration and denied appointment of a next friend.
Dante Edoardo Daly’s requests for reconsideration and appointment of Kenn Goldblatt as his next friend were denied; the Westchester County Board of Legislators opposed the motion.
What happened
In Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators, Dante Edoardo Daly asked the court to reconsider its decision not to let Kenn Goldblatt represent him as an “ADAAA Advocate.”
Daly also asked the court to appoint Goldblatt as his “next friend,” a person who may conduct a lawsuit for someone unable to manage the case personally. Daly offered only general claims, and no evidence that he could not manage his own affairs.
Judge Halpern denied both requests. He ruled that Daly had not identified overlooked law or facts, a change in the law, new evidence, or a clear error requiring reconsideration, and that the record did not support appointing a next friend.
The detailed version
- Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators · No. 7:19-cv-04642
- Philip Halpern
- May 19, 2021
Background
Dante Edoardo Daly moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 26, 2021 order denying his request to have Kenn Goldblatt, described as a lay person, represent him as an “ADAAA Advocate.” In the alternative, Daly asked the court to appoint Goldblatt as his “next friend” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). Westchester County Board of Legislators opposed the motion.
Reconsideration request
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when a party identifies controlling law or facts the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court found that Daly identified none of those grounds. It characterized his filing as an attempt to relitigate an issue already decided and denied the reconsideration request.
The court also noted that it has broad discretion over whether to allow an amicus curiae brief, meaning a filing by someone who is not a party intended to assist the court. It stated that Goldblatt’s proposed brief did not offer a perspective unavailable from the parties, sought to advocate for Daly, and had been filed without permission. The court said that considering the brief would not change its conclusion.
Next-friend request
Rule 17(c)(2) requires a court to protect a minor or legally incompetent person who lacks a representative in a case, including by appointing a guardian or making another appropriate order. The court stated that this duty is triggered by actual documentation or testimony showing mental incompetency affecting the person’s practical ability to manage personal affairs.
The court found that Daly offered no supporting evidence beyond conclusory allegations. It also noted that Daly had litigated the matter through motions and discovery. The court denied the request to appoint Goldblatt as Daly’s next friend.
Disposition
Judge Halpern denied Daly’s motion for reconsideration and denied his request for appointment of a next friend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.