New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SMITH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-010-079, Claim No. 101961, Motion No. M-62428


Synopsis


Claimant's discovery motion denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-079
Claimant(s):
STEVE SMITH
Claimant short name:
SMITH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101961
Motion number(s):
M-62428
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
STEVE SMITHPro 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:
November 16, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's discovery motion:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibit.............................1

Attorney's Opposing Affirmation and Exhibits........................................................2

Attorney's Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibit............................3

Claimant seeks an order compelling defendant to comply with claimant's discovery demand of May 22, 2000. Preliminarily, it is noted that claimant's motion papers are deficient because they fail to include a copy of the discovery demand and the response. Additionally, claimant has failed to include a good faith affirmation as required by the Court rules. On this basis alone the motion may be denied. However, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court has considered the merits of claimant's motion.

Claimant concedes that defendant has responded to the discovery demand and defendant had included a copy of its response to claimant (Defendant's Exs. 1, A). Claimant, however, erroneously, and without basis in law, argues that the personnel records of Correction Officer Hernandez are not confidential information protected from disclosure under Civil Rights Law 50-a because Hernandez resigned; nor does claimant show any basis to order an incamera review of such records.

MOTION DENIED.


November 16, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims