New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FOMINAS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-005-550, Claim No. 97576, Motion No. M-62306


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for preclusion is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-005-550
Claimant(s):
ANATOLIS FOMINAS
Claimant short name:
FOMINAS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
97576
Motion number(s):
M-62306
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Donald J. Corbett, Jr.
Claimant's attorney:
Anatolis FominasPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Patricia M. Bordonaro, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 13, 2000
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


On September 13, 2000, the following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Defendant for preclusion:

1, 2 Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed

3, 4 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is denied.

On April 14, 1998, the Defendant served the Claimant with a Demand for a Bill of Particulars, various discovery demands, including Names and Addresses of Witnesses and an Expert Witness demand (Exhibits A, B, C & D). The Claimant has not sought to vacate or modify any of said demands, despite Defendant's good faith effort exemplified by its letter to Claimant on June 14, 1999 (Exhibit E).

Although not addressed in its affirmation, attached as Exhibit F is a written response/settlement demand notarized document from Claimant sworn to on June 23, 1999, in which, inter alia, he says that he does not understand what papers the Defendant wants because the sought-after papers are not named nor are dates given.

I find that the Demand for a Bill of Particulars (Exhibit A), the Demand for Reports, Records, Releases, Photographs, Statements and Documents (Exhibit B), the Demand for Names and Addresses of Witnesses (Exhibit C), and the Expert Witness Demand (Exhibit D) are clear and that Claimant's purported inability to understand (Exhibit F) is contrived. Claimant made no attempt whatsoever to complain about said demands, made no attempt to get an extension of time and made no attempt to respond to any of the said demands.

Nonetheless, here I note that the trial herein is scheduled for September 28, 2000, which trial was scheduled by a letter from the Clerk dated July 17, 2000. Claimant was given a deadline to move to compel the production of witnesses or documents of August 9, 2000. The instant motion by the Defendant was brought on September 1, 2000, and is returnable on September 13, 2000, some 15 days prior to trial. Accordingly, by the time any order here could be filed and served, any conditional relief pursuant to CPLR 3042(c), which I could order would not be able to be served prior to the trial. Accordingly, this motion is denied.


September 13, 2000
Rochester, New York

HON. DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims