New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-059, Claim No. 101202, Motion No. M-67778


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2004-031-059
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-67778
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:
June 15, 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 December 12, 2003;
2. Affidavit of Claimant, sworn to December 8, 2003, with exhibits;
3. Claimant's Memorandum of Law, dated December 8, 2003;
4. Affirmation of Timothy P. Mulvey, Esq., dated January 26, 2004. This is Claimant's motion to compel discovery from Defendant. In his underlying action, Claimant alleges that, on October 6, 1998, he was assaulted by correction officers and denied appropriate medical care for the injuries he incurred in the assault. He also alleges that he was denied due process in an October 13, 1998 disciplinary hearing relating to the assault and, therefore, was illegally confined to the Special Housing Unit or keeplock.

Claimant filed this motion seeking to compel Defendant to respond to his demand for interrogatories dated July 22, 2003. Claimant alleges that, despite the demands and repeated requests for responses, Defendant has ignored the demands.

In opposition to this motion, Defendant has submitted a two paragraph affirmation in which it references an earlier decision, filed on December 8, 2003, concerning discovery in this claim and directing limited responses from Defendant. Defendant argues that this previous decision encompassed the demands at issue in this motion and, therefore, by complying with the Court's direction in that decision, Defendant "fully and adequately supplied responses to claimant's Interrogatories, and . . . no further or additional information need be provided." (Mulvey Affirmation, paragraph 2).

Assuming that Defendant was correct, I was, nonetheless, initially disturbed by the somewhat shorthanded way in which Defendant addressed this motion. It would have been appropriate, and certainly more convenient for the Court, for Defendant to have addressed the specific demands, explained why responses, or further responses, are not appropriate and perhaps attached to its opposition papers Defendant's responses, as well as the previous order that it alleges relieved it of the obligation for further responses.

I note, however, that this is Claimant's sixth motion relating to discovery in this matter and do understand, to some extent, a certain level of frustration on Defendant's part. For this reason, rather than grant Claimant's motion due to Defendant's inadequate opposition, I reviewed the previous order and the motions to which it referred. This review, however, demonstrated that the December 8, 2003 decision to which Defendant refers did not in any way relate to Claimant's July 22, 2003 demand for interrogatories. In fact, the four motions determined in that decision (M-66732, M-66733, M-66804, and M-67274 ) were all returnable on May 28, 2003, approximately two months before the demands which are the subject of this motion were even served. Therefore, Defendant's argument that the December 8, 2003 decision addressed Defendant's obligation to respond to Claimant's July 22, 2003 demand for interrogatories is entirely without merit.

Therefore, in light of the fact that Defendant has submitted no other basis for opposing Claimant's motion it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is granted. Defendant is directed to respond to Claimant's demand for interrogatories dated July 22, 2003 within 30 days of the filed date of this order.

June 15, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims