New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HARRIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-015-288, Claim No. 105348, Motion No. M-65375


Synopsis


Court denied pro se claimant's motion to compel responses to omnibus discovery demands alleged to have been provided immediately following service of motion. Denial is without prejudice.

Case Information

UID:
2002-015-288
Claimant(s):
GEORGE HARRIS The caption was previously amended by decision and order of this Court dated April 17, 2002 to name the State of New York as the sole proper defendant.
Claimant short name:
HARRIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption was previously amended by decision and order of this Court dated April 17, 2002 to name the State of New York as the sole proper defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105348
Motion number(s):
M-65375
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
George Harris, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: G. Lawrence Dillon, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 5, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant's motion to compel responses to certain omnibus discovery demands pursuant to CPLR 3124 is denied. The underlying claim seeks to recover money damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from claimant's discharge from Upstate Medical University [sic] on October 23, 2001 over his objection and without having been examined by a cardiologist or an ear nose and throat specialist.

The motion was made by notice dated June 18, 2002 and seeks an order compelling responses to certain written demands served upon the Attorney General's Syracuse office on January 11, 2002. In response to the motion Assistant Attorney General G. Lawrence Dillon avers in his affirmation that he was concurrently serving a response to claimant's document request and has asked the Court to dismiss the instant motion as moot.

While the service of responses to claimant's outstanding demands may or may not render the instant motion moot that determination cannot be made on this record since defense counsel failed to provide a copy of the purported responses thus depriving the Court of the opportunity to review them. Since those responses may or may not satisfy the claimant's demands it would at this time be a waste of judicial resources to consider each of the demands addressed by the motion.

Claimant's motion is denied (see, Carroll v Williams, 277 AD2d 414) without prejudice to a similar motion addressed to whatever demands remain unanswered following claimant's review of the responses served upon him.


September 5, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated June 18, 2002;
  2. Affidavit of George Harris sworn to June 17, 2002 with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation of G. Lawrence Dillon dated June 25, 2002.