New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-028-101512, Claim No. 100767, Motion No. M-62168


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel is denied where defendant voluntarily agrees to make video tapes and photographs available to claimant if they are located. The Court directs defendant to submit a status report on the status of the search for such items..

Case Information

UID:
2000-028-101512
Claimant(s):
DWAYNE W. MOORE
Claimant short name:
MOORE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100767
Motion number(s):
M-62168
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
DWAYNE W. MOORE, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Glenn C. King, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 16, 2000
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on claimant's motion for an order compelling the production of certain items.

• abNotice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Dwayne W. Moore, pro se, filed August 9, 2000 ("Moore affidavit")

• abLetter response of Glenn C. King, AAG, dated August 30, 2000 and received September 1, 2000 ("King letter")

• abAffirmation in Opposition of Glenn C. King, AAG, dated September 25, 2000 and

filed September 27, 2000 ("King affirmation").


By this motion claimant Dwayne W. Moore requests the Court to "order an [sic] subpoena [for] the Video Tapes and photos of claimant" and for arrangements to be made for claimant to view the video tapes. Claimant asserts that it has been difficult to obtain these items and that defendant will not turn them over to claimant without a Court order. In response, counsel for defendant initially informed the Court, and claimant, that "this office" (presumably, the Department of Law) was not currently in possession of any video tapes or photographs of claimant but that a search was being conducted ("A.A.G. King letter"). Subsequently, defense counsel reported that there are no relevant video tapes from either Southport Correctional Facility

or Coxsackie Correctional Facility and no photographs from the former facility ("A.A.G. King affirmation, ¶ 6). Nineteen photographs were discovered at Coxsackie Correctional Facility and copies have been provided to claimant (id, Exh A).

Defense counsel acknowledges that on two occasions, this claimant's request for video tapes had been denied "on several grounds," and, consequently, it appears that from claimant's point of view, this motion may have appeared warranted. In light of the response that has now been provided, however, the motion will be denied as unnecessary.



October 16, 2000
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims