New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FORSHEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-043, Claim No. 105817, Motion Nos. M-67629, M-67630


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-043
Claimant(s):
STEVEN C. FORSHEY
Claimant short name:
FORSHEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105817
Motion number(s):
M-67629, M-67630
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
STEVEN C. FORSHEY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: TIMOTHY P. MULVEY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 11, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on two motions by Claimant: the first for permission to file a notice of intention and the second for permission to depose opposing counsel and for a trial preference:

1. Claimant's Notice of Motion (M-67629), filed October 14, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to October 5, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Claimant's Notice of Motion (M-67630), filed October 14, 2003;
4. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to October 5, 2003, with attached exhibits. The Court has before it two separate motions filed by Claimant relating to claim number 105817. Defendant has not submitted opposition to either motion but, in this instance, opposition is not necessary.

In his underlying claim, filed on March 28, 2002, Mr. Forshey alleges that between August 22, and November 14, 2001, he was the subject of harassment by correction officers at both Five Points Correctional Facility and Wende Correctional Facility. He alleges that he was given bogus misbehavior reports, illegally confined, that his personal property was lost or destroyed and that his civil rights were violated. I rendered a previous decision, filed on December 12, 2003, in which all causes of action alleged in this claim, except the cause of action for lost personal property, were dismissed.

With regard to the current motions, in his first (M-67629), Claimant appears to request permission to file a note of issue and the deposition of his opposing counsel. As Claimant is currently a pro se inmate and such claims are scheduled in due course for trial, a note of issue is not utilized or useful. Claimant's request is, therefore, denied. Claimant has submitted no indication of any possible purpose that the extremely unique request for a deposition of opposing counsel would serve. There is no indication that opposing counsel possesses any information relevant to the Claimant's alleged loss of property. This request is also, therefore, denied. I also note that, in the last paragraph of his supporting affidavit, Claimant requests a pre-trial conference. I note that this request was made in a previous motion by Claimant and denied in my December 12, 2003 decision identified above.

With his second motion, Claimant requests a trial preference, pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a)(1). Claimant asserts, as a basis for this request, that he is an inmate and prefers that the jury in this matter not see him in the prison setting. This, of course, is not a relevant factor because there is no right to a jury trial in the Court of Claims (Court of Claims Act § 12(3); Graham v Stillman, 100 AD2d 893). Claimant also alleges that opposing counsel has been delaying the trial of this matter. He offers no indication of how, and I note that, as stated above, trials are set in due course by the Court. I am aware of no request from Defendant to adjourn or delay any trial of this matter.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Claimant's motions are both denied in their entirety.

May 11, 2004
Rochester, New York
HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims