New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RIVERA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-554, Claim No. 105785, Motion No. M-68593


Synopsis


Claimant's motion is granted to the extent of lifting the stay of this claim, but denied with respect to remaining discovery request and sanctions.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-554
Claimant(s):
JOSE RIVERA
Claimant short name:
RIVERA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105785
Motion number(s):
M-68593
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JOSE RIVERA, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

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

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se seeks, among other things, an order lifting the previous stay of this matter. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") does not oppose that portion of the motion, but does oppose the remaining requests.

This court previously dismissed claimant's first cause of action relating to the filing of a "false" misbehavior report (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, July 16, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65234 & M-65320 [UID No. 2002-019-548]),[1] as well as a subsequent motion by claimant seeking leave to renew said partial dismissal. (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, October 18, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion No. M-65806 [UID No. 2002-019-579]). This court also denied claimant's motion for an order striking the third, fourth, fifth and sixth affirmative defenses contained in the State's Verified Answer. (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, October 9, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65743 & M-65750 [UID No. 2002-019-577]). Thereafter, this court granted claimant's motion for a stay of the remaining causes of action contained in his claim pending his appeal of said decisions. (Rivera v State of New York, Ct Cl, March 4, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion No. M-66357). The Third Department recently affirmed this court's dismissal of the first cause of action, as well as the denial of claimant's motion to strike various affirmative defenses. (Rivera v State of New York, 5 AD3d 881).


By way of this motion claimant seeks to vacate the prior stay since his appeals have now been determined. The State has no objection to placing this matter back on the court's calendar. In view of the fact that the appeals in this matter have been resolved, this court will grant claimant's motion to the extent of lifting the prior stay of this claim.


However, claimant's additional requests for relief must be denied. On March 15, 2004, claimant indicates that he was told to turn over his personal property in preparation for a transfer from Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton") to Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport"). Upon arrival at Southport, claimant discovered his files regarding this claim were missing and now asserts that his files were intentionally destroyed by correction officers. With respect to those missing files, claimant argues that a video tape from his housing area in Clinton will show what the officers did with his property. Claimant also alleges that the correction officer involved with his original claim has threatened him and that the State should be sanctioned for such behavior by striking its Verified Answer. The court notes that this claim does not assert any bailment cause of action and, as such, claimant's request for discovery relating thereto such as the video tape will be denied. Additionally, claimant's request for an order striking the State's Verified Answer is without merit. Finally, claimant's request for the State to produce him for a "motion hearing" is denied inasmuch as the court denied claimant's request for oral argument of this motion. (Notice of Motion).


Accordingly, claimant's motion, Motion No. M-68593, is GRANTED IN PART with respect to lifting the stay of this matter and DENIED IN PART with respect to claimant's remaining requests, in accordance with the terms hereof.


June 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. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65234 and M-65320, filed August 2, 2002.
  2. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65743 and M-65750, filed October 24, 2002.
  3. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion No. M-65806, filed November 4, 2002.
  4. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 105785, Motion No. M-66357, filed March 18, 2003.
  5. Notice of Motion No. M-68593, dated May 14, 2004, and filed June 4, 2004.
  6. Affidavit of Jose Rivera, in support of motion, sworn to May 24, 2004, with attached exhibits.
  7. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 15, 2004, and filed June 17, 2004.


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