New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-032-119, Claim No. 108580, Motion No. M-68653


Synopsis


Although defendant is not required to produce a document solely for the purpose of responding to a discovery demand, the inmate claimant is nevertheless entitled to the information contained on an audiotape of his disciplinary hearing, when such information is relevant to his claim. Defendant may select the manner in which that information is conveyed to claimant.


Case Information

UID:
2004-032-119
Claimant(s):
EDWIN LAMAGE
Claimant short name:
LAMAGE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108580
Motion number(s):
M-68653
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
Edwin Lamage, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 1, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In a prior motion, claimant sought an order directing defendant to respond to a number of discovery demands and requests, including responses to interrogatories directed to several individuals and to produce certain documents. Among the documents sought were the records of a disciplinary hearing. This portion of the motion was denied, because counsel for defendant stated that such records could be found in claimant's personal file, which followed him from facility to facility and which he could inspect after making a request in writing to the facility Inmate Records Coordinator.

The instant motion, although claimant asserts that it is one "to renew or reargue" that prior order, is in fact a motion to compel a new and different discovery demand: producing and providing a transcript of the audio tape of the disciplinary hearing in question. Claimant does not state that he has previously sought this discovery from defendant, and therefore the motion is premature. Litigants may not seek relief under CPLR 3124 unless and until they have served discovery demands in accordance with the CPLR and the Uniform Rules of the Court of Claims and such demands have been improperly rejected or inadequately answered by the State (Williams v State of New York, #2004-032-044, Claim No. 108088, Motion No. M-67987, June 14, 2004, Hard, J.).


Claimant's motion is denied as improper.




December 1, 2004
Albany, New York

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


The following papers were read on claimant's motion "for reargument or renewal of a prior order of this Court:"

1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Edwin Lamage, pro se;

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., AAG;

Filed papers: Claim; Answer; Decision and Order: Lamage v State of New York, #2004-032-037, Claim No. 108580, Motion No. M-68182, June 3, 2004, Hard, J.