New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DEAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-033, Claim No. 105894, Motion No. M-67789


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-033
Claimant(s):
TODD G. DEAN The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper Defendant.
Claimant short name:
DEAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper Defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105894
Motion number(s):
M-67789
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
TODD G. DEAN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 5, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on motion by Defendant for an order compelling disclosure from Claimant pursuant to CPLR 3124:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed December 16, 2003;
2. Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to December 15, 2003, with attached exhibits;
  1. Claimant's unsworn "Answer to the Motion to Compel," filed on February 2, 2004, with attachments;
4. Correspondence of William D. Lonergan, Esq., dated February 2, 2004. This is Defendant's motion to compel Claimant to respond to certain outstanding discovery demands. These demands are: a demand for a verified bill of particulars; a notice for discovery and inspection; a collateral source demand; an expert witness demand; and a notice of examination before trial. Each of these demands was served upon Claimant on May 3, 2002.

Defendant has established due service of the demands upon Claimant, as well as compliance with Section 206.8(b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims.

In response to this motion, Claimant has submitted to the Court and to Defendant's counsel what purport to be responses to each outstanding demand. I am cognizant of the fact that it took this motion to sufficiently motivate Claimant to respond to Defendant's demands, but I find that the motion is now moot and must be denied. While Defendant's counsel indicates in his February 2, 2004 letter to Claimant that he is dissatisfied with some of Claimant's responses, information specific enough to evaluate Defendant's objections is lacking. Defendant is, of course, free to make whatever motion it deems is necessary when, and if, it believes that Claimant's responses to its February 2, 2004 letter are inadequate.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion is denied.

May 5, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims