New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LEBRON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-167, Claim No. 104381, Motion No. M-69050


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure and for judicial subpoenas is denied

Case Information

UID:
2004-031-167
Claimant(s):
ELVIN LEBRON
Claimant short name:
LEBRON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104381
Motion number(s):
M-69050
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ELVIN LEBRON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: RICHARD B. FRIEDFERTIG, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 7, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure from Defendant and also for the issuance of judicial subpoenas:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed September 7, 2004;
  1. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to September 1, 2004;
  2. October 12, 2004 correspondence of Richard B. Friedfertig, Esq.;
4. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to October 13, 2004;
5. Decision and Order, filed October 8, 2004. MOTION TO COMPEL

Claimant seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to his discovery demands served upon Defendant on August 13, 2004.

In response to this motion, Defendant has adequately demonstrated that responses to these demands were served upon Claimant on or about October 12, 2004, thereby rendering Claimant's motion moot. While Claimant indicates in his October 13, 2004 affidavit that he is dissatisfied with some of Defendant's responses, these issues are not before me and, in any event, the record does not contain information specific enough to evaluate Claimant's objections. For this reason, Claimant's motion to compel must be denied.
JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS
Claimant also requests that the Court issue two judicial subpoenas to compel the production to two identified inmates to give testimony at the trial of this matter. Claimant indicates that these inmates are to give testimony relating to an August 3, 2000 incident in which a number of Claimant's personal photographs were lost or destroyed. However, the cause of action relating to the August 3, 2000 incident was dismissed by this Court in a Decision and Order filed on October 8, 2004. That dismissal renders Claimant's request for the identified witnesses moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is denied in its entirety.

December 7, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims