New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AMAKER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-032-022, Claim No. 107678, Motion No. M-67757


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-032-022
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY D. AMAKER
Claimant short name:
AMAKER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107678
Motion number(s):
M-67757
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
Anthony D. Amaker, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, Assistant Attorney General,Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 22, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This claim relates to three separate incidents in which it is alleged that claimant's personal property was lost at Upstate Correctional Facility upon his transfer from Upstate to Great Meadow Correctional Facility in September and October 2002. The claim was filed in April 2003, and issue was joined on June 2, 2003.

Claimant's demand for discovery and inspection (Amaker affidavit, Exhibit; Resnick affirmation, Exhibit A) was served in early September 2003. In response, the Office of the Attorney General wrote to claimant on September 24, 2003, stating that his demand had been forwarded to both Upstate and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities and that a response would be served "in a timely manner upon receipt of the records from the facilities, to the extent that the requested records exist" (Resnick affirmation, Exhibit A, p 3). According to defense counsel, the response to claimant's discovery demand in Claim No. 107678 was mailed to claimant on December 9, 2003 (Resnick affirmation, ¶11). No copy of the discovery response was attached to defendant's affirmation; no copy was provided by claimant, who initiated this motion; and no copy is contained in the trial file provided to the Court.

Following receipt of the response, which he describes as a "partial" and "incomplete" response, claimant submitted two additional affidavits, detailing his dissatisfaction with defendant's response. Counsel for defendant has made no further submissions and has not addressed the alleged inadequacies of the response as they are detailed by claimant.

Without seeing the response that was sent by defendant to claimant, the Court is simply in no position to rule on the motion to compel. Consequently, the return date of Motion No. M-67757 will be adjourned to May 5, 2004 so that, unless matters are resolved in the meantime, the parties may each make a supplemental response. The information that should be provided in any such response would include the specific demand in question, the response to that demand provided by defendant, and a discussion of the party's position as to the adequacy of that response. In the event that all disputes have been resolved, claimant need only inform the Court that this motion should be withdrawn.

Claimant's motion is adjourned for further submissions. The return date of Motion No. M-67757 is now May 5, 2004.



March 22, 2004
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims



The following papers were read on claimant's motion for an order compelling the production of certain documents
1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Anthony D. Amaker, pro se, with annexed Exhibit

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Kathleen M. Resnick, Esq., AAG, with annexed Exhibits

Filed papers: Claim; Answer