New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-019-542, Claim Nos. 106546, 106547, 106548, Motion No. M-66643


Synopsis


Claimant's motion demand receipt for discovery demands is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-019-542
Claimant(s):
RUSHAWN YOUNG
Claimant short name:
YOUNG
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106546, 106547, 106548
Motion number(s):
M-66643
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
RUSHAWN YOUNG, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 13, 2003
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, has entitled his latest set of motion papers as a "Motion Directing Defendant's [sic] to Notify Plaintiff of Receiving Discovery Demands and Bills of Particulars for Claims [sic] Nos. 106546, 106547, 106548 via Certified Mail Reciept [sic] Sent From Upstate Corr. Fac." The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim No. 106546, filed August 23, 2002.
  2. Claim No. 106547, filed August 23, 2002.
  3. Claim No. 106548, filed August 23, 2002.
  4. "Motion Directing Defendant's [sic] to Notify Plaintiff of Receiving Discovery Demands and Bills of Particulars for Claims [sic] Nos. 106546, 106547, 106548 via Certified Mail Reciept [sic] Sent From Upstate Corr. Fac.", Motion No. M-66643, dated and sworn to March 26, 2003, and filed March 31, 2003.
  5. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated April 17, 2003, and filed April 21, 2003.
Claimant's request that this Court direct the Attorney General's office to confirm receipt of materials allegedly sent by certified mail is denied. To the extent that Claimant has continuing complaints about the handling of his inmate mail there are proper remedies in place such as an article 78 review as well as the inmate grievance process available to handle such issues. (Matter of McKenna v Goord, 245 AD2d 1074, appeal denied 91 NY2d 812). Finally, this Court does not have the authority to direct the United States Marshall to investigate Claimant's allegations.


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that Claimant's motion, Motion No. M-66643, is DENIED.

May 13, 2003
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims