New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALLOY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK , #2004-030-585, Claim No. 108929, Motion No. M-68923


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2004-030-585
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MALLOY
Claimant short name:
MALLOY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108929
Motion number(s):
M-68923
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
ANTHONY MALLOY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: MARY B. KAVANEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 26, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 4 were read and considered on Claimant's motion


requesting copies of documents:

1,2 Notice of Motion Request for Documents, Original Documents; Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion Request for Documents, Original Documents by Anthony Malloy, Claimant

3,4 Filed papers: Claim, Answer

No Opposition Filed

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the Motion is disposed of as follows:

Anthony Malloy, the Claimant herein, alleges in Claim Number 108929 that Defendant's agents failed to provide him with adequate medical care while he was housed at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereafter Green Haven) for a Court appearance on or about December 18, 2003. He alleges that Defendant failed to place him on the sick-call list for several days while he was at Green Haven. When he returned to his "regular correctional facility" - Five Points Correctional Facility - he was finally seen and treated by medical personnel. He alleges he served a Notice of Intention to file a claim upon the Attorney General on or about February 6, 2004.

In addition to a general denial, the Defendant raises two affirmative defenses in its Answer, including Claimant's alleged culpable conduct, or the culpable conduct of others for whom the Defendant has no legal responsibility, and a lack of compliance with Court of Claims Act §11. No counterclaims are raised.

In previous motion practice regarding this Claim, Claimant made a motion asking leave of the Court to submit a Response to Defendant's Answer. That motion was denied, with the Court indicating that unless a counterclaim had been raised in the Answer, there was no need for any responsive pleading. [See Anthony Malloy v State of New York, Claim No. 108929, Motion No. M-68197, unreported Decision and Order, (Scuccimarra, J., July 13, 2004)].

In the Affidavit in support of the present motion, Claimant now asks for "Documents of the Notice of Motion 206.8 and Affidavit of Service 206.9 Motion(s) Claimant send in to the Court of Claims, with the Grievance Complaint and all Original Document leading to this Motion No. M-68197." [Affidavit in Support, ¶ 2]. Claimant also states: "Defendant(s) having given an Motion of Pre Answer with respect to Claimant(s) Motion of Claim, until such Pre-Answer is made by the Defendants, Claimant is requesting document(s) listed above of Number #2., So when Defendant Pre-Answer is served upon Claimant and Claimant return(s) an Response, then when your Honor feels it is necessary to request upon Claimant to make Notice of Motion of 206.8 and Affidavit of Service 206.9, then Claimant can re-do the notice of Motion 206.8 and Affidavit of Service 206.9 sent with leading documents your honor sir. (sic)" [ibid. ¶ 4].

Based upon the statements by Claimant set forth above it is difficult to discern exactly what the Claimant is looking for. If it is documents in the control of the Defendant, then any requests for documents should be directed to Defendant pursuant to the discovery provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. See generally Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101 et seq. If Claimant is looking for copies of papers he himself filed with this Court, then a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court specifying what he is looking for so that the Clerk may provide him with the cost of copying same, and furnish copies upon payment, might be the best avenue to obtain what he wants.

In any event, Claimant's motion number M-68923 is in all respects denied.

October 26, 2004
White Plains, New York

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