New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RIVERA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-019-558, Claim No. 106467-A, Motion No. M-67207


Claimant's motion to compel discovery is denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 25, 2003

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for the second time to compel the State of New York to comply with his Demand for Discovery and Inspection dated November 18, 2002 pursuant to CPLR 3124. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION AND ORDER, Claim No. 106467-A, Motion No. M-66605, filed June 11, 2003.
  2. "CLAIMANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND/OR INSPECTION", dated November 18, 2002, and filed November 22, 2002.
  3. "RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION", dated June 27, 2003, and filed June 30, 2003.
  4. "Notice of Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Inspection", Motion No. M-67207, dated July 15, 2003, and filed July 28, 2003.
  5. Affidavit of Jose Rivera, sworn to July 21, 2003, with attachment.
  6. Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated August 14, 2003, and filed August 18, 2003.
Claimant previously filed a motion to compel a satisfactory response from the State to his Demand for Discovery and Inspection dated November 18, 2002 (hereinafter "Demand"). This court directed the State to provide an itemized response to claimant's Demand, correlated to claimant's numbered paragraphs, within thirty days of the entry of said Decision & Order. (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 11, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 106467-A, Motion No. M-66605). By way of this second motion, claimant indicates that he has since received a response from the State as directed by the court,[1] but contends that said response is inadequate. More specifically, claimant objects to the State's responses to questions #2 and #3. With respect to the various subdivisions of question #2, claimant disputes the State's refusal to supply him a copy of the Southport Correctional Facility Policy and Procedure Manual; Southport Correctional Facility Special Housing Unit Manual; Master Index of all documents, materials and records held at Southport Correctional Facility; and Master Index of all the documents, materials and records, held by the New York State Department of Correctional Services. (Demand #d-2 [a-d]). The State's response indicated that these items were either available in the prison law library and/or obtainable via a freedom of information request. The court has reviewed these specific demands and responses and finds the State's responses are adequate. Moreover, the court finds that the requested documents are neither material nor relevant to this simple bailment claim.

With respect to question #3, claimant had asked for photographs or videotapes regarding the lost property and argues that the State is mandated to preserve videotapes for 3 years. (Claimant's Affidavit, ¶ 34). The State's discovery response indicated, upon information and belief, that no such items exist. The court finds the State's response to question #3 to be adequate.

Finally, claimant raises the prospect of encumbering his prison account to cover the cost of various photocopying charges. This claimant has previously raised this request in other claims which this court has denied and the same request will be denied here. (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, July 16, 2002, Lebous J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65234 & M-65320 [UID No. 2002-019-548]; Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, September 6, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 106263, Motion No. M-65583 [UID No. 2002-019-566]).[2]

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that claimant's motion, Motion No. M-67207, is DENIED.

August 25, 2003
Binghamton, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1]The State's court directed response was filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 30, 2003.
[2]Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at