New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CROSBY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-032-021, Claim No. 106040, Motion No. M-65860


Synopsis


Pro se claimant's motion to compel the production of documents and a response to interrogatories is denied as moot, where counsel for defendant states that the requested information has been provided.

Case Information

UID:
2002-032-021
Claimant(s):
JOHN CROSBY
Claimant short name:
CROSBY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106040
Motion number(s):
M-65860
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
John Crosby, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General
By: Saul Aronson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General,Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 18, 2002
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision
This claim is based on allegations that claimant has been denied adequate medical care while in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). The claim was filed in May 2002. In June 2002, claimant served on defendant a "Request for Production of Records" and "Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents" (Crosby affidavit, Exhibits A, B). The instant motion to compel responses to these requests was filed on October 1, 2002.

In response to a discovery demand for documents, made pursuant to CPLR 3120, the party upon whom the demand is served is required to serve any objections within twenty days after receiving the demand (CPLR 3122). There is no fixed time, however, for a party to respond to such demands, and it is obvious that some materials or information will require a longer time to accumulate than others will. In an affirmation dated October 29, 2002, counsel for defendant states that, as of that date, there had been full compliance with claimant's discovery demands. Claimant now has had ample opportunity to inform the Court if this statement is not accurate, and the Court has received no response from claimant.
Claimant's motion is denied as moot.


The following papers were read on claimant's motion for an order compelling the production of certain documents and a response to interrogatories
1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of John Crosby, pro se, with annexed Exhibits

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Saul Aronson, AAG

Filed papers: Claim; Answer




December 18, 2002
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims