This is an adjourned return date on claimant's motion for an order striking the
defendant's Verified Answer due to its failure to respond to his discovery
demand entitled "Claimant First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents."
This is a bailment claim arising from claimant's allegations that the New York
State Department of Correctional Services lost some of his personal property
while he was incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility on August 10, 1998.
In response to claimant's original motion, the defendant State of New York
("State") conceded that there had been an unusual delay in responding to
claimant's requests due to an oversight in counsel's office. At the time of the
State's response to the original motion it served partial responses to
claimant's discovery demands and requested an additional 60 days in order to
obtain the additional documents requested. The court noted that claimant waited
several years before bringing the instant motion. (Sims v State of New
, Ct Cl, October 12, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 100507, Motion No.
M-69101 [UID No. 2004-019-585]).
this court granted the State's request for an adjournment until December 15,
2004 in order to allow the State time to obtain the remaining documents. As
part of said Decision & Order, the parties were instructed to keep the court
advised, in writing, as to the progress of discovery and/or make whatever
supplemental submissions, if any, they deemed necessary in order to address any
discovery issues remaining after the State's responses thereto. The State has
advised the court that it has now served claimant with supplemental responses
dated December 13 and 14, 2004 containing the remaining documents. (Letter from
Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG dated December 14, 2004). The court has not received
any papers from or on behalf of claimant on this adjourned date. Consequently,
it appears that the State has responded to claimant's prior discovery demands
and, as such, claimant's initial motion to compel a response thereto will be
denied as moot.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Motion No. M-69101 is
DENIED AS MOOT in accordance with the foregoing.