New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MERCER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-023, Claim No. 107223, Motion No. M-66886


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-023
Claimant(s):
JAMES R. MERCER, JR.
Claimant short name:
MERCER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107223
Motion number(s):
M-66886
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
JAMES R. MERCER, JR., PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: REYNOLDS E. HAHN, 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 from Defendant. In deciding this motion I have read and reviewed the following papers:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed May 30, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to May 23, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Correspondence from Claimant, dated June 25, 2003;
4. Correspondence from Claimant, dated July 11, 2003;
5. Correspondence from Claimant, dated July 22, 2003;
6. Correspondence from Reynolds E. Hahn, Esq., dated August 26, 2003;
7. Correspondence from Claimant, dated August 28, 2003;
8. Filed documents: Claim and Verified Answer. This is Claimant's motion to compel disclosure from Defendant for failing to respond to his various discovery demands. In his underlying claim filed on January 21, 2003, Claimant alleges that Defendant is responsible for injuries Claimant received when he was assaulted by another inmate on July 12, 2002. Claimant also alleges that, after this assault, Defendant improperly investigated the incident, charged him with bogus misbehavior reports, retaliated against him for his complaints relating to his subsequent treatment, caused him undue emotional suffering, and failed to properly secure his personal property after he was incapacitated or confined after the assault. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $216,300.00.

In his motion papers, Claimant alleges that on February 22, 2003, he served Defendant with a notice for discovery and inspection of documents and eight sets of interrogatories. According to Claimant, he agreed to substitute these sets of interrogatories with one set served upon Defendant on March 31, 2003. According to Claimant's motion papers, at the time he filed his motion, Defendant had failed to respond to any of his demands. Subsequently, by letter dated July 11, 2003, Claimant advised the Court that he had received responses to his demands. He requested that the Court adjourn the motion until August 27, 2003, so that he would have a chance to review the responses and notify Defendant and the Court as to whether he had any objections to those responses. Though, technically, this request was objectionable, as Claimant had implicitly conceded that his motion was moot, upon receiving no objection from Defendant, the request was granted.

Thereafter, despite numerous communications from Claimant relating to what he asserts is Defendant's misrepresentation of the facts and events underlying his claim, Claimant failed to notify the Court with regard to any specific objections to Defendant's responses.

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