New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

NIEBLAS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-506, Claim No. 103210, Motion No. M-67311


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-028-506
Claimant(s):
PEDRO NIEBLAS
Claimant short name:
NIEBLAS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103210
Motion number(s):
M-67311
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
PEDRO NIEBLAS, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Gwendolyn HatcherAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 4, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

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 Affidavit");


(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.







February 4, 2004
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims