New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VELEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-038, Claim No. 105934, Motion No. M-66390


Synopsis


Claimant failed to serve discovery demands or motion papers on Defendant. Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-038
Claimant(s):
JOHN VELEZ
Claimant short name:
VELEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105934
Motion number(s):
M-66390
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
JOHN VELEZ, 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:
June 27, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure from Defendant pursuant to CPLR 3124:
1) Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed February 10, 2003;
2) Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to January 27, 2003;
3) Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to February 24, 2003, with attached exhibit. This is Claimant's motion, purportedly to compel disclosure from Defendant. However, upon examination of the motion papers, it appears that what Claimant has characterized as a motion to compel disclosure is actually an attempt on Claimant's part to obtain disclosure. He apparently has assumed that he is required to make a motion prior to requesting disclosure from Defendant.

This interpretation of Claimant's actions is reinforced by Defendant's opposition to this motion, which indicates that neither any previous discovery demands nor, in fact, Claimant's present motion papers, were ever served upon the Attorney General.

Because neither the discovery demands purportedly at issue nor the motion papers themselves were served upon the Attorney General, it is hereby,


ORDERED, that Claimant's motion to compel discovery from Defendant is denied.

June 27, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims