New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VALLE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-005-525, Claim No. 101829, Motion No. M-64605


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for an order to compel or preclude responses from disclosure demands is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-005-525
Claimant(s):
JAIME VALLE
Claimant short name:
VALLE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101829
Motion number(s):
M-64605
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
Jaime Valle,Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Timothy P. Mulvey, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 19, 2002
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

On March 13, 2002, the following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Defendant for an order to compel or preclude responses from disclosure demands:

1, 2 Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed
  1. Opposing Papers
3, 4 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is granted.

On February 29, 2000, Defendant served, inter alia, its Demand for Disclosure on Claimant, including an expert witness demand. No motion to vacate or modify such notice or demand has been made, nor were objections raised, and the time to respond has not been extended. The Defendant renewed its demand on January 17, 2001 (Exhibit B), receiving a response which it describes as not proper.

Now that this claim is scheduled for trial before me on May 1, 2002, the Defendant seeks an order of preclusion, preventing Claimant at trial from giving any expert witness testimony. Claimant, appearing pro se, has neither opposed the instant motion nor the relief sought herein, and has defaulted on the instant motion.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted and the Claimant will be precluded at trial from giving any evidence or proof relative to any of the matters which were the subject of the said expert witness demand, unless he responds to said demand within ten days of service upon him of a file-stamped copy of this order.

Because of the proximity of the trial date, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon the Claimant.


March 19, 2002
Rochester, New York

HON. DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims