New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

REYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-552, Claim No. 107609, Motion No. M-68722


Synopsis


Claimant's application is denied without prejudice.

Case Information

UID:
2004-028-552
Claimant(s):
RODERICK REYES
Claimant short name:
REYES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107609
Motion number(s):
M-68722
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
RODERICK REYES
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Glenn C. KingAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 26, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) for an Order to obtain material prepared for litigation or trial:

1) Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Roderick Reyes filed June 25, 2004 (Reyes Affidavit); and

2) Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Glenn C. King, with Exhibit A, filed July 29, 2004;


FILED PAPERS: Claim and Verified Answer


The CPLR directs that there shall be "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." (CPLR 3101 [a]) The CPLR also creates three categories of protected materials: privileged matter, (CPLR 3101 [b]); attorney's work product (CPLR 3101 [c]); and trial preparation materials, which are subject to disclosure only on a showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]) (Spectrum Systems Int'l Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371). Claimant has denominated his application as one for material falling into the third category of protected material and Defendant opposes the application.

Here, Claimant has put the cart before the horse by making the instant motion, as his list of materials sought is nothing more than a laundry list of discovery items. As pointed out by Defendant, Claimant has failed to avail himself of the procedures (see CPLR 3102) customarily used to obtain disclosure[1], including most notably a demand (see Sullivan v Smith, 198 AD2d 749) .

Given the broad discretion afforded to the Court in supervising discovery (NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 192 AD2d 1032), the Court will not condone resort to motion practice as the first disclosure device nor will it engage in a parsing of Claimant's demands to determine whether Claimant has requested any material falling within the ambit of material prepared for litigation. Claimant is well advised to become accustomed with the proper procedures for conducting litigation as set forth in the CPLR.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion is DENIED without prejudice.


August 26, 2004
Albany, New York

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




[1] To Defendant's credit, and in the spirit of the CPLR, it has attempted to comply with many of Claimant's requests as if they were made by proper demand (see King Affirmation ¶ 4).