New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PEARSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-009-32, Claim No. 104210, Motion No. M-65253


Synopsis


Defendant's motion seeking preclusion was granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-009-32
Claimant(s):
HERMAN PEARSON
Claimant short name:
PEARSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104210
Motion number(s):
M-65253
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
ALFRED P. KREMER, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Michael R. O'Neill, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 11, 2002
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant has brought this motion seeking an order of preclusion.

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

Claimant, at the time appearing pro se, filed this claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on May 1, 2001. Defendant then served its answer to this claim, together with various discovery demands, and filed copies of those papers with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on June 18, 2001.

In July, 2001, defendant's attorney received correspondence from attorney Alfred P. Kremer, indicating that he was now representing claimant. At that time, however, claimant's attorney did not file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the Court.

Having no knowledge that claimant had secured legal representation, this Court, by letter dated May 9, 2002, advised the parties that a date had been scheduled for the trial of this claim. Upon receipt of this notice, defendant obtained permission from this Court (in accordance with § 206.8[b] of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims) to bring the instant motion, and advised the Court that Mr. Kremer was purportedly representing claimant. Mr. Kremer then filed a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the Court, and upon receipt of that notice, the trial was adjourned pending completion of discovery.

To date, however, neither claimant nor his attorney have submitted any response to the instant motion, nor is there any indication that responses have been made to the previously served demands.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-65253 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that claimant, at the time of the trial of this claim, is hereby precluded from offering any evidence, testimony, or designated items of which disclosure has been sought by defendant's Demand for Discovery and Production, Expert Disclosure Demand, and Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, including evidence of any mental or physical condition sought to be determined in the claim herein, unless, within 45 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereon upon claimant's attorney, claimant shall serve upon the attorney for the defendant his responses and items pursuant to those demands of the defendant.


July 11, 2002
Syracuse, New York

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