New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BARTON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-010-058, Claim No. 95020, Motion Nos. M-61709, CM-61839


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure and defendant's motion for a protective order

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-058
Claimant(s):
IVAN BARTON
Claimant short name:
BARTON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
95020
Motion number(s):
M-61709
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-61839
Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
IVAN BARTONPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 20, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-6 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to compel disclosure and defendant's motion for a protective order:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit, Affidavit of Good Faith, Exhibits.....................................................................................................................1

Defendant's Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.....................................................................................................................2

Claimant's Reply......................................................................................................3

Defendant's Supplemental Affirmation and Response to Claimant's Discovery Demand and Exhibits................................................................................................4

Claimant's Supplemental Affirmation.......................................................................5

Claimant's Letter Dated August 15, 2000................................................................6

Claimant seeks an order compelling defendant's compliance with his discovery demands. Defendant cross-moves for a protective order striking certain demands. The Court has reviewed both the demands and responses. As explained in ¶ 4 of Defendant's Supporting Affirmation, the bulk of claimant's demands are over broad and unduly burdensome. Claimant is cautioned that demands for "any and all" documents are palpably improper (CPLR 3120; see, Haroian v Nusbaum, 84 AD2d 532, 533).

This Court cannot compel defendant's response to such improper demands. In any event, defendant has submitted further responses as a courtesy to this pro se litigant (Exs. B-E to Defendant's Supplemental Affirmation).

Accordingly, claimant's motion is DENIED as moot and defendant's cross-motion is GRANTED.


September 20, 2000
White Plains , New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims