Appeal from an order of the City Court of Rye, Westchester County (Peter Lane, J.), entered June 21, 2004. The order denied plaintiff's motion, in effect, to renew, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), her prior motion for poor person relief and the production of a trial transcript pursuant to CPLR 1101 (a).

Order affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action seeking damages for alleged conversion of certain videotapes submitted to defendant Cablevision in connection with plaintiff's public access cable program, plaintiff, seeking to appeal from a judgment in favor of
defendants, made an application for poor person relief pursuant to CPLR 1101 (a). The court below denied the application, and plaintiff moved, in essence, to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e). The court below denied the motion on procedural grounds, and plaintiff appealed.

Even assuming that the court erred in denying the motion on procedural grounds, in any event, substantively, the denial of poor person relief was proper. CPLR 1101 (a), governing motions for permission to proceed as a poor person, requires, in pertinent part:
"The moving party shall file an affidavit setting forth the amount of and sources of his or her income and listing his or her property with its value; that he or she is unable to pay the costs, fees and expenses necessary to prosecute or defend the action or to maintain or respond to the appeal; the nature of the action; sufficient facts so that the merit of the contentions can be ascertained; and whether any other person is beneficially interested in any recovery sought and, if so, whether every such person is unable to pay such costs, [*2]fees and expenses."

The determination of whether to grant poor person relief is within the court's discretion (see Smith v Smith, 2 NY2d 120 [1956]; Jenks v Murphy, 21 AD2d 346 [1964]). Although plaintiff's submissions, taken as a whole, may provide the required financial data and statement of inability to pay, they fail to show that the appeal has
merit, a showing required for poor person relief (see Teeter v Reed, 57 AD2d 735 [1977]).

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 5, 2007