New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

STEEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-013-033, Claim No. 104298, Motion No. M-63988


Synopsis


Claimant, who is responsible for producing only documents in his custody, possession or control (CPLR 3120[a][1][i]), is granted an extension of time to respond to Defendant's discovery demands.

Case Information

UID:
2001-013-033
Claimant(s):
NATHANIEL STEEN
Claimant short name:
STEEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104298
Motion number(s):
M-63988
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
PHILIP J. PATTI
Claimant's attorney:
NATHANIEL STEEN, Pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
BY: GREGORY P. MILLER, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 31, 2001
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision



On September 19, 2001, the following papers were read on Claimant's motion for an extension of time:

1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Nathaniel Steen, pro se


2. Opposition Papers: None Received


3. Filed Papers: Claim; Answer


By this claim, Claimant seeks compensation for personal injuries suffered on March 3, 2001, at Gowanda Correctional Facility when he broke a leg while playing basketball. He alleges that he slipped and fell because ice had negligently been left on the playing surface.

Claimant has now moved for an extension of time in which to respond to Defendant's "request for Discovery." I conclude that Claimant is referring to the State's combined demands (Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, Notice for Discovery and Inspection, Demand for Collateral Sources and Demand Pursuant to CPLR 3101[d]), copies of which were filed with the Court in June 2001.

Claimant supports his request by stating that he has limited access to the prison law library, that he is proceeding pro se, and that he has "virtually no access to State Employee records and files which constitute part of the material requested by defendant" (Steen Affidavit, ¶3). Claimant is reminded that a party to litigation may be required to produce only those items that are in its possession, custody or control (CPLR 3120[a][1][i]; Saferstein v Stark, 171 AD2d 856; Corriel v Volkswagen of Am., 127 AD2d 729).

Claimant's motion is granted to the extent that his time to respond to Defendant's combined demands is extended to February 28, 2002.


December 31, 2001
Rochester, New York

HON. PHILIP J. PATTI
Judge of the Court of Claims