New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-046, Claim No. 101202, Motion No. M-67500


Synopsis


Claimant's motions relating to disclosure are denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-031-046
Claimant(s):
EDMOND ROY
Claimant short name:
ROY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101202
Motion number(s):
M-67500
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
EDMOND ROY, 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 13, 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 an order compelling Defendant to respond to his discovery demands:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed October 3, 2003;
2. Affidavit of Claimant, sworn to September 30, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Claimant's undated Reply, filed November 3, 2003;
4. Affirmation of Timothy P. Mulvey, Esq., dated October 16, 2003. Claimant filed this motion seeking to compel Defendant to respond to his discovery demands dated October 15, 2003. Claimant did not attach copies of the discovery demands in question to his motion papers. I note that Claimant's motion was filed on October 3, 2003, approximately two weeks prior to the alleged service of these demands. I note further that, in a decision dated October 31, 2003, I addressed four outstanding motions all filed by Claimant and all relating to discovery in this claim, and in that decision dealt specifically with Claimant's allegation that Defendant had not responded to his discovery demands dated October 15, 2002. Since Claimant could not possibly have intended this motion to compel to address demands that had not yet been served, I assume that the Claimant misstated the year of service of his demands, and he was, in fact, referring to demands he served on October 15, 2002. In that event, I note that Claimant's motion is redundant, as the previous decision referred to above dealt with this very issue.
Based upon the foregoing, it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is denied.

May 13, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims