New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LESANE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-009-010, Claim No. 102912, Motion No. M-64121


Synopsis


Claimant's motion seeking leave to re-argue for a second time a motion to compel discovery and inspection of a correction officer's personnel file was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-009-010
Claimant(s):
JAMES LESANE
Claimant short name:
LESANE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102912
Motion number(s):
M-64121
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
JAMES LESANE, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 25, 2002
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant seeks leave to re-argue, for a second time, a prior motion brought to compel discovery and inspection.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, with Exhibits 1,2


Affirmation in Opposition 3

In a prior motion, claimant sought to compel the production of the personnel file for Correction Officer R. Dietterich. The alleged actions of this correction officer form the basis for claimant's claim asserting assault and trespass. In that motion, defendant objected to the production of the personnel file, citing the protections provided by Civil Rights Law, § 50-a. By a Decision and Order dated March 30, 2001, this Court denied claimant's motion, finding that claimant had not established a sufficient factual basis to compel the production of the demanded personnel file.[1]

Claimant then brought a motion to re-argue pursuant to CPLR 2221(a), which was also denied by the Court[2]. By this instant motion, claimant once again seeks permission to re-argue his initial motion in which he sought the production of Correction Officer Dietterich's personnel file. As the basis for this application, claimant contends that Correction Officer Dietterich lied in one of his responses to previously served interrogatories, bringing into question his character and credibility and thereby establishing a "factual predicate" which would permit the production of the requested personnel file. The allegation by claimant that Correction Officer Dietterich lied in one of his responses to the interrogatories, even if true, is clearly insufficient to override the policy considerations behind, and the protections provided by, § 50-a of the Civil Rights Law.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-64121, seeking leave to re-argue, is hereby DENIED.


February 25, 2002
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] See Decision and Order to Motion No. M-62778, dated March 30, 2001.
[2] See Decision and Order to Motion No. M-63411, dated September 6, 2001.