New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BAUMANN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-031, Claim No. 108164, Motion No. M-67773


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-031
Claimant(s):
JOHN BAUMANN
Claimant short name:
BAUMANN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108164
Motion number(s):
M-67773
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
JOHN BAUMANN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 4, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Claimant for permission to supplement his claim:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed December 11, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to December 8, 2003;
3. Affirmation of Heather R. Rubinstein, Esq., dated January 21, 2004, with attached exhibit;
4. Filed documents: Claim, "Amended Claim," and Answer. Claimant brings this motion seeking permission to supplement his claim. Claimant filed his initial claim in this matter on August 18, 2003. In that document, Claimant alleges that since his incarceration in October of 1997, he has been denied adequate medical treatment for Hepatitis C.

With this current motion, Claimant seeks to supplement his claim, although he does not specify in his moving papers how or why the claim is to be supplemented.

Defendant opposes Claimant's request, arguing that Claimant did not submit his proposed supplemental claim with his motion papers. Further, Defendant argues that the document it believes to be Claimant's proposed supplemental claim is not a complete document, and that any response to this document will be difficult and confusing. Finally, Defendant argues that, if its assumptions as to Claimant's proposed supplemental claim are correct, Claimant's motion is unnecessary as the events identified in the purported supplemental claim are already encompassed in the original claim.

I agree with Defendant and find that Claimant has failed to demonstrate his right to the relief requested. Claimant failed to address what in his claim he seeks to supplement and he has not offered any reasons or justification for the proposed supplements. The Court and Defendant are left to compare the original claim with a previously filed document which purports to identify replacement paragraphs for the original claim. It appears from this document that the matters Claimant seeks to add to his claim are already within the purview of the original claim, and are, therefore, unnecessary (Bastian v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 9, 2002 [Claim No.104744, Motion No. M-65982], Lebous, J., UID # 2002-019-592).

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion for permission to file a supplemental claim is denied.

May 4, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims