New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SALAHUDDIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-022, Claim No. 104418, Motion No. M-67184


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-022
Claimant(s):
ABDULLAH Y. SALAHUDDIN
Claimant short name:
SALAHUDDIN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104418
Motion number(s):
M-67184
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ABDULLAH Y. SALAHUDDIN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WENDY E. MORCIO, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 30, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is Claimant's motion for an order compelling disclosure and sanctions against Defendant. In deciding this motion, I have read and reviewed the following papers:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed July 31, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to July 21, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Affidavit of Wendy E. Morcio, Esq., sworn to August 13, 2003, with attached exhibits;
4. Filed documents: Claim and Verified Answer. This is Claimant's motion to compel disclosure and for sanctions against Defendant for failing to comply with his discovery demands. In his underlying claim filed on June 13, 2001, Claimant alleges that Defendant is responsible for the destruction of his typewriter. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $500.00.

In his motion papers, Claimant alleges that Defendant has failed to respond to his discovery demands, including a notice for discovery and inspection of documents, a request for admissions and a response to written interrogatories. Copies of Claimant's various demands were attached as exhibits to his motion papers.

In response to this motion, Defendant asserts that it has properly responded to each of the demands submitted by Claimant, and that it had done so on or before July 2, 2002. Defendant included, as exhibit C to its responding papers, copies of each of its responses to Claimant.

Claimant has failed to rebut Defendant's assertions.

Accordingly, as it appears that Defendant has properly responded to each of Claimant's outstanding discovery demands, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is denied.

April 30, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims