New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MILES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-007, Claim No. 105060, Motion Nos. M-65901, CM-65984


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel discovery denied. Defendant's motion for permission to file an amended answer is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-007
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-65901
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-65984
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:
February 20, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 7, were read on motion by Claimant for an order of preclusion against Defendant, and Defendant's cross-motion for an order permitting it to serve an amended answer pursuant to CPLR 3025:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed October 9, 2002;
2. Affidavit of Roger Miles, sworn to September 29, 2002 with attached exhibits;
3. Affidavit in Opposition of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to October 28, 2002, with attached exhibits;
4. Notice of Cross-Motion, filed October 29, 2002;
5. Affidavit in Support of Cross-Motion of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to October 28, 2002, with attached exhibits;
6. Claimant's "Joint Affidavit in Opposition and Reply," sworn to November 21, 2002;
7. Reply Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to November 26, 2002.Claimant, by motion entitled "Notice of Motion to Deem Issues Resolved," requests that the Court address what, in his estimation, is Defendant's failure to properly comply with the previous Order of this Court filed April 11, 2002. That order directed Defendant to disclose certain documents. A review of Claimant's motion papers demonstrates that what Claimant is actually requesting is a preclusion order relating to Defendant's alleged failure to properly respond to Claimant's discovery demands.

Claimant admits that Defendant did respond to his discovery demands, but maintains that the documents produced are either forged, or are not the documents that he is looking for. With regard to Defendant's responses to Claimant's interrogatories, Claimant's motion finds no fault with the answers themselves, but he objects to this document being signed by the Assistant Attorney General defending the claim. This objection, while reasonable, was cured by Defendant's submission of amended responses to interrogatories in October of 2002. I find that Defendant has adequately responded to Claimant's discovery demands and has adequately complied with my previous Order, as well. Claimant's motion is without merit and must be denied.

With its cross-motion, Defendant requests permission to file an amended answer pursuant to CPLR 3025. Specifically, Defendant seeks to amend its original answer filed November 20, 2001, to assert the affirmative defense that the matters asserted in the claim were addressed in Erie County Supreme Court in an Article 78 proceeding, and that the decision of Justice O'Donnell in that proceeding, filed on December 3, 2001, is res judicata in this matter. Claimant has opposed this cross-motion, but has identified no valid reason for its denial. Claimant has merely set forth, again, the allegations of fraud and forgery upon which those proceedings were based. I note also that Judge O'Donnell's decision was filed after Defendant had filed its answer. For that reason, Defendant could not have asserted the res judicata defense in its original answer. I find that the Claimant would not be prejudiced by granting Defendant's motion.

Based upon the papers submitted with this motion, and the reasons set forth above, it is

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion for preclusion is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for permission to amend its answer is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its amended answer within 30 days of the filed date of this order.

February 20, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims