New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

STRONG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-075, Claim No. 105656, Motion No. M-67315


Synopsis


Inmate discovery motion was denied as moot.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-075
Claimant(s):
PERRY STRONG The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Claimant short name:
STRONG
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105656
Motion number(s):
M-67315
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Perry Strong
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Mary B. Kavaney, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 1, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, Perry Strong asserts that he was assaulted by correction officers at Otisville Correctional Facility. This is Mr. Strong's motion to compel disclosure, specifically, photographs which were directed to be produced to him pursuant to this Court's Decision and Order filed on June 6, 2003. In such Decision and Order, defendant was directed to produce such photographs within sixty days. Mr. Strong asserts that as of the time he made this motion on August 10, 2003, he had not received the photos. In its affirmation in response to this motion, defendant asserts that it "was in the process of producing the photos and [they] are attached to defendant's affirmation . . . [as] Exhibit 1." See ¶2 of the September 4, 2003 affirmation of Mary B. Kavaney.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-67315 be denied as moot.


October 1, 2003
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's "Motion for Enforcement of Prior Order to Compel Production, and Sanction"; and defendant's affirmation in response.