New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CARLISLE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-079, Claim No. 107387, Motion No. M-66736


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-079
Claimant(s):
ANTWANE CARLISLE
Claimant short name:
CARLISLE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107387
Motion number(s):
M-66736
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ANTWANE CARLISLE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: JAMES L. GELORMINI, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 1, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is Claimant's motion for an order compelling disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3124. In deciding this motion I have read and reviewed the following papers:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed April 25, 2003;
2. Claimant's unsworn "Affirmation," dated April 22, 2003;
3. Claimant's unsworn "Statement of Facts," dated April 22, 2003;
4. Claimant's unsworn "Affirmation," dated April 24, 2003;
5. Affirmation of James L. Gelormini, Esq., dated May 5, 2003, with attached exhibit;
6. Claimant's unsworn "Reply Affirmation," dated May 11, 2003;
7. Filed documents: Claim and Answer. By Claim filed on February 26, 2003, Claimant alleges that, on August 28, 2002, Defendant lost or damaged certain items of Claimant's personal property.

As part of the discovery process, Claimant served upon Defendant a demand for interrogatories and a demand for the production of documents on March 28, 2003. Claimant asserts that, although Defendant did respond to his requests, the responses are inadequate and inappropriate because Defendant has refused to supply certain requested documents unless Claimant first pays for copying costs. Claimant asserts that he is entitled to the requested documents without having to pay copying costs because, when he filed his claim, he was granted poor person status and permitted to pay a reduced filing fee.

However, as Defendant concisely points out in its response to Claimant's motion, Claimant's right to have the documents produced is subject to the State's right to require Claimant to advance reasonable copying costs (Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530; Civil Rights Law § 79 (3) and § 79-a(3)). Defendant is not required to provide Claimant with photocopies of requested documents free of charge.

Based upon the foregoing and it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is denied.

November 1, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims