New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MILES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-031-010, Claim No. 105060, Motion No. M-64521


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure granted, in part.

Case Information

UID:
2002-031-010
Claimant(s):
ROGER MILES
Claimant short name:
MILES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105060
Motion number(s):
M-64521
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ROGER MILES, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 18, 2002
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 5, were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure from Defendant pursuant to CPLR 3124:
  1. Claimant's Notice of Motion filed December 28, 2001;
  2. Claimant's affidavit sworn to December 25, 2001;
  3. Affidavit in opposition of William D. Lonergan, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, sworn to January 18, 2002, with attached exhibits;
  4. Claimant's Reply Affidavit sworn to January 26, 2002, with attached exhibits; and
  5. Claimant's "Notice of Discovery and Inspection" dated November 23, 2001.
In this action Claimant alleges, among other things, that he is being illegally confined as a result of fraudulent testimony given against him at a parole revocation hearing which apparently took place sometime in 1997. Claimant asserts that on November 23, 2001, he served a Notice for Discovery and Inspection upon Defendant and Defendant has failed to respond to those demands, despite Claimant's repeated requests.

Defendant opposes the motion, indicating that it provided a letter response to Claimant dated December 20, 2001, which informed Claimant that Defendant was in the process of gathering documents responsive to his requests and that "a reasonable amount of time is necessary to obtain them." Defendant does not indicate in its response whether or not the documents have now been gathered.

Defendant objects to items numbered 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of Claimant's demand. In these items, Claimant requests copies of unspecified sections of the Executive Law. Claimant's demand actually contains two items numbered 12. The first item requests the hearing officer's order to hold Claimant for a final parole revocation hearing and is not objectionable. The second item numbered 12 is a request, like items 7 through 10, for unspecified sections of the Executive Law. Defendant correctly points out that it can not be required to perform legal research for Claimant and that Claimant has access to these items himself. Defendant's objection to these items is proper.

Defendant also asserts, as a general objection, its belief that many of the requested documents are already in Claimant's possession. I find that this objection is not proper and that, as limited above, Defendant should produce documents in its possession which are responsive to Claimant's requests.

Based upon the foregoing it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is granted in part and Defendant is directed to respond to items 1 through 6, 11, the first item numbered 12, and 13 of Claimant's "Notice of Discovery and Inspection" dated November 23, 2001, within 60 days of the filing date of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that all further relief requested by Claimant in his motion to compel disclosure is denied for the reasons set forth herein.

March 18, 2002
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims