New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MONTALVO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-587, Claim No. 109004, Motion No. M-69052


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion for extension of time to respond to discovery demand is denied as moot.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-587
Claimant(s):
ALBERT MONTALVO
Claimant short name:
MONTALVO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109004
Motion number(s):
M-69052
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
ALBERT MONTALVO, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Carol A. Cocchiola, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 19, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for the second time for an extension of time to respond to defendant's discovery demands. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant previously sought an extension of time to respond to the State's discovery demands. By way of Decision and Order, claimant's motion was denied as moot because the parties agreed upon a resolution of the matter between themselves. (Montalvo v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 7, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109004, Motion No. M-68444 [UID No. 2004-019-545]).[1] Additionally, the court informed claimant that it does not supervise discovery deadlines between parties and that this matter should have been handled without motion practice.


Despite said admonition, claimant requests once again the court's permission for additional time to respond to the State's discovery demands. In opposition, the State represents that the entire issue is moot since claimant served discovery responses on the State on September 16, 2004. In view of the fact that the court does not supervise discovery deadlines between parties, as well as claimant's apparent service of discovery responses since the filing of this motion, claimant's request will once again be denied as moot.


Parenthetically, the court notes that it has also received from claimant a letter dated September 30, 2004 in which he indicates that the State has not responded to his "Request for Production of Documents/First Set of Interrogatories." (Claimant's letter dated September 30, 2004). Once again, the parties should attempt to resolve discovery disputes between themselves before seeking court intervention.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for an order of extension of time, Motion No. M-69052, is DENIED AS MOOT.


October 19, 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. 109004, Motion No. M-68444, filed June 9, 2004.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-69052, sworn to August 29, 2004, and filed September 2, 2004.
  3. Affidavit of Albert G. Montalvo, in support of motion, sworn to August 29, 2004.
  4. Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated September 29, 2004, and filed October 4, 2004, with attached exhibit.
  5. Letter from Albert G. Montalvo to court, dated September 30, 2004 and received October 6, 2004.

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