New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HYMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-009-24, Claim No. 107527, Motion No. M-67985


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-009-24
Claimant(s):
TERRENCE HYMAN
Claimant short name:
HYMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107527
Motion number(s):
M-67985
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
TERRENCE HYMAN, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 12, 2004
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant has brought this motion for preclusion and summary judgment dismissing the claim under CPLR Rule 3212.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:

Notice of Motion, Affirmation, with Exhibits 1,2

In a Decision and Order filed November 6, 2003 (see Motion No. M-67044), this Court granted a Conditional Order of Preclusion, and directed that claimant serve upon the defendant his bill of particulars and responses to defendant's discovery demands within 60 days of service of the Order. As set forth in defendant's Affirmation supporting this motion (Item No. 2), the Conditional Preclusion Order was served upon claimant on or about November 17, 2003.

As set forth in the papers before the Court, claimant has failed to serve his bill of particulars and responses to the discovery demands upon the Attorney General. The Court notes that claimant has failed to submit any papers in opposition to this motion.

Therefore, the Court must grant defendant's motion to preclude. Furthermore, it is clear that claimant will not be able to prove a prima facie case with such evidence precluded, and therefore defendant's request to dismiss the claim must also be granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that defendant's motion is GRANTED, and claimant is precluded from offering any evidence at trial that is directly related to and requested within defendant's demand for bill of particulars and defendant's discovery demands; and it is further

ORDERED, that Claim No. 107527 is hereby DISMISSED.


April 12, 2004
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims