New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WELLS v. New York, #2000-011-518, Claim No. 97422, Motion No. M-60984


Synopsis


Claimant has moved to renew a prior motion to compel disclosure.

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-518
Claimant(s):
CARL WELLS
Claimant short name:
WELLS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
97422
Motion number(s):
M-60984
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Thomas J. McNamara
Claimant's attorney:
Carl Wells, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Kevan J. Acton, Esq., of counsel)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 10, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved to renew a prior motion to compel disclosure. The prior motion wasdenied because Claimant had failed to sufficiently identify the demand he asserted had not been answered and therefore, the court could not determine if Defendant had complied with the demand (Wells v State of New York, Claim No. 97422, Motion No.60296, November 15, 1999, McNamara, J.).

Disclosure in this claim has proceeded in a series of missteps beginning with Claimant submitting a demand for disclosure to the court rather than serving it on Defendant. The demand which Claimant now seeks compliance with is a request for information submitted to the Department of Correctional Services under the Freedom of Information Law. The court, however, has not located the request among the sheaf of papers Claimant has annexed to his affidavit. In responding to the motion, Defendant asserts that it has complied with a prior order of the court directing that a response to the FOIL demand be provided. However, Claimant argues that the documents have not been provided. In response, Defendant maintains that Claimant's translation of the FOIL request as set forth in the instant motion differs from Defendant's previous understanding of what Claimant was asking for.

Considering the confusion caused by the FOIL request including the subsequent attempts to understand and respond to it and given that the demand was not made pursuant to or in accordance with CPLR article 31, the most expedient course of action at this point is for Claimant to serve on Defendant, through its attorney, appropriate demands for disclosure as provided in CPLR article 31. To the extent that Defendant can presently identify documents it believes Claimant is requesting, such documents should be provided immediately. The motion is denied.


April 10, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:
  1. Notice of Motion dated December 22, 1999 with exhibits annexed.
  2. Affirmation in Opposition of Kevan J. Acton, Esq., dated February 7, 2000.