New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

NUNEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-030-524, Claim No. 104574, Motion No. M-65274


Synopsis


Motion to compel production of documents denied with leave to renew upon the State's failure to


either comply or object or otherwise respond by a date certain

Case Information

UID:
2002-030-524
Claimant(s):
RICHARD NUNEZ
Claimant short name:
NUNEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104574
Motion number(s):
M-65274
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
RICHARD NUNEZ, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
BURKE, LIPTON, PULEO & McCARTHYBY: KEVIN D'ARCY, ESQ.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 13, 2002
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 6, were read on Claimant's motion to compel production of documents:
1,2 Notice of Motion; Affidavit in Support by Richard Nunez, Claimant pro se
3,4,5 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer, Notice of Demand for Production of Documents
  1. Stipulation dated April 29, 2002 (not filed with Clerk's Office)
  1. Opposition
After carefully reviewing the papers submitted, and the applicable law, the motion is disposed of as follows:

Denied, with leave to renew upon the State's failure to either comply with the discovery requests contained in Claimant's Notice of Demand for Production of Documents for Discovery and Inspection filed September 17, 2001, and presumably served on counsel for Defendant at that same time although no affidavit of service appears to have been filed with the Clerk, on or before July 12, 2002; or object or otherwise respond to said demands by July 12, 2002. §§3122; 3124; 3126 Civil Practice Law and Rules; See, Waul v State of New York, Claim No. 98836, Motion No. M-63331, Motion No. M-63385, Read, P.J., July 11, 2001

Claimant has not set forth exactly what documents he is seeking, except to indicate in his Notice of Motion that he is looking for "the documents and things requested in the Addendum to A Stipulation of April 25, 2002 and the documents requested at a discovery examination of records on May 16, 2002 as detailed the attached addendum...." (sic). He indicates in his Affidavit in Support that "On May 16, 2002, claimant met with counsel for Defendant and examined some number of records in boxes. Those records contained none of the items requested. Those records did contain other records pertinent to the action herein, but which had not been seen before by claimant....Copies of those newly found items were requested and to this date have not been provided..." [Paragraphs 7 and 8, Affidavit in Support dated May 22, 2002]. Earlier in the affidavit Claimant indicates that he provided more specifics to counsel for Defendant, thus "...refin[ing] the discovery demands to include items well specified as to author, description, or identifier numbers and dates and published those to Defendant in a letter." [Ibid, Paragraph 4].

The items listed in the Addendum to the Stipulation of April 29, 2002, appear to be documents in the custody and control of Defendant. Counsel for the Defendant has not either responded to Claimant's demands or opposed this motion, at least as far as the Court's records show [See, 22 NYCRR §206.5 as to filing requirements in the Court of Claims; 22 NYCRR §§ 206.8, 206.9]. Nonetheless, despite some lack of specificity as to what documents Claimant is seeking this Court finds that some response from Defendant is necessary.

Both parties are reminded of the filing and other requirements of 22 NYCRR Part 206 concerning practice in the Court of Claims, and are expected to be familiar with the practice rules as well as applicable provisions of The Court of Claims Act and the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Both parties are directed to appear for a compliance conference on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. Any motions as well as any further discovery may be scheduled at that time. Only an attorney familiar with the file should attend on behalf of the Defendant and, if Claimant should have retained counsel in the interim, said counsel is directed to file a Notice of Appearance and is also expected to be familiar with the file. No adjournments will be granted except in conformance with part 125 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Court.

June 13, 2002
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims