New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

McADOO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-514, Claim No. 107888, Motion No. M-67714


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-030-514
Claimant(s):
CORNELIUS McADOO
Claimant short name:
McADOO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107888
Motion number(s):
M-67714
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
CORNELIUS McADOO
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: BARRY KAUFMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 8, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on Claimant's motion to

compel disclosure:

1,2 Motion for Disclosure; Sworn Affidavit by Cornelius McAdoo sworn to November 17, 2003

  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Barry Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, dated December 22, 2003
4,5 Filed Papers: Claim Answer

After carefully considering the papers submitted[1] and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

Denied. As noted by the Assistant Attorney General, Claimant never served a demand for disclosure upon the Defendant pursuant to Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, and cannot move to compel disclosure prematurely. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3124; 3126. Upon service of a notice for inspection or demand for documents as required, the Assistant Attorney General indicates he will attempt to identify the relevant documents - seeking the Claimant's assistance in obtaining specific identifying information - advise Claimant of their availability, and any cost of reproduction.

Additionally, Claimant did not support his motion with an Affidavit indicating why the Court's intervention is sought, and the materiality and relevance any of the material sought has to his claim. Indeed, no Notice of Motion was included as required. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2214; 22 NYCRR §206.8, 206.9.

Accordingly, Motion Number M-67714 is hereby denied in its entirety.

March 8, 2004
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims





[1] The Court notes that an additional document entitled "Response to Affirmation in Opposition" was filed by Claimant after the return date of the motion of December 31, 2003, and was not considered.