In reaching its decision, the Court has considered the following papers:
(1) Notice of Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery and Inspection, dated
August 23, 2003 and filed on August 27, 2003;
(2) Affidavit in Support of Pedro Nieblas dated August 23, 2003 and filed on
August 27, 2003 with Exhibits "1"-"4" (hereinafter referred to as the "Nieblas
(3) Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Gwendolyn Hatcher,
Esq., dated October 9, 2003 and filed on October 14, 2003 with Exhibits "A-G"
(hereinafter referred to as the "Hatcher Affirmation").
Filed papers: Claim; Answer.
The Claim herein alleges that the Claimant's parole officer falsely accused him
of using drugs and thereafter coerced Claimant into admitting that he had used
drugs. The claim was served upon the Office of the Attorney General on October
4, 2000 and filed on October 12, 2000. On April 16, 2003, the Claimant moved to
amend his claim. The application was denied by an Order of the Hon. Richard E.
Sise dated June 12, 2003. Thereafter, Claimant moved for permission to file a
late claim, which was denied by an Order of the Hon. Alan C. Marin on October
29, 2003. The Claimant served a second Combined Notice of Discovery on July 20,
2003 upon the office of the Attorney General.
On July 30, 2003 the Office of the Attorney General wrote the Claimant that
they would not respond to the demands until the Motion before Judge Marin was
decided (Exhibit "3" annexed to Nieblas Affirmation). Accordingly, the Claimant
brought the present Motion.
The State opposes the instant Motion on the ground that it has responded to the
demands in a timely fashion (Hatcher Affirmation, Exhibit "G"). It also argues
that the demands requested by Claimant were improper in that they sought
responses for periods outside of the period covered in the claim (Hatcher
Affirmation para 13 [unpaginated]). Finally, the State alleges that much of the
requested discovery had either previously been provided (Hatcher Affirmation,
para 18 [unpaginated]), or had not been served upon the Office of the Attorney
General (Hatcher Affirmation, para 16 [unpaginated]).
After reviewing the responses, which have not been challenged by the Claimant,
the Court finds that the State has complied with CPLR §3124 and, therefore,
denies the present application as moot.