New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CAMPOLITO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-519, Claim No. 107825, Motion No. M-67682


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-019-519
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY M. CAMPOLITO
Claimant short name:
CAMPOLITO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107825
Motion number(s):
M-67682
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
ANTHONY M. CAMPOLITO, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 25, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for an order compelling a response to his discovery demands. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

This court previously issued a Decision & Order granting the State's request for a sixty-day adjournment of this matter until January 28, 2004 to allow the State an opportunity to respond to claimant's discovery demands in the first instance. (Campolito v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 10, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 107825, Motion No. M-67682 [UID No. 2003-019-574]).[1] The parties were instructed to advise the court in writing as to the progress of discovery. By letter dated January 29, 2004, the State informed the court that it had served and filed responses to claimant's discovery demands on January 28, 2004. (Court Exhibit 1). In a letter dated January 31, 2004, claimant indicated that he had received the State's responses, but noted his objection to two items, namely Exhibit E's incomplete last page and Exhibit F which was missing as an attachment to the State's responses. (Court Exhibit 2). Thereafter, in a supplemental discovery response dated February 13, 2004, the State advised that the last page of Exhibit E is in the form received by the State and that it supplied claimant with Exhibit F which was inadvertently omitted from its original response.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion to compel, Motion No. M-67682, is DENIED.


February 25, 2004
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims





The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Notice of Motion No. M-67682, dated November 8, 2003, and filed November 12, 2003.
  2. Affidavit of Anthony M. Campolito, in support of motion, dated November 8, 2003, with attached exhibit.
  3. Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated December 5, 2003, and filed December 8, 2003.
  4. DECISION AND ORDER, Claim No. 107825, Motion No. M-67682, Lebous, J., dated December 10, 2003, and filed December 12, 2003.
  5. Letter from James E. Shoemaker, AAG, to Court, dated January 29, 2004.
  6. Letter from Anthony M. Campolito to Court, dated January 31, 2004.
  7. State's Supplemental Response to Request for Production of Documents, dated February 13, 2004.


[1]Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at