New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KELLEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-508, Claim No. 104438, Motion No. M-69563


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion to compel discovery is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-508
Claimant(s):
ANDRE KELLEY
Claimant short name:
KELLEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104438
Motion number(s):
M-69563
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
ANDRE KELLEY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Carol A. Cocchiola, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 3, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for the second time for an order compelling the defendant to provide discovery responses pursuant to CPLR 3101. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

This court denied claimant's first motion to compel discovery by stating, in part, as follows:

[t]o the extent claimant's motion can be construed as seeking permission to engage in discovery in the first instance, a motion to the court is neither necessary nor proper. Rather, claimant may pursue discovery through ordinary means under the various discovery devices of Article 31 of the CPLR without the need for court permission or involvement.

(Kelley v State of New York, Ct Cl, November 22, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104438, Motion Nos. M-69215 & M-69288[UID No. 2004-019-596]; emphasis added).[1]


Claimant did not heed this court's instructions. According to the State, claimant has still not submitted any discovery demands to the State aside from the prior and present motions. Once again, claimant must first serve the State with discovery demands before resorting to a motion to compel. As such, claimant's request for disclosure will be denied.


Consequently, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for discovery, Motion No. M-69563, is DENIED.


February 3, 2005
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104438, Motion Nos. M-69215 & M-69288, filed December 1, 2004.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-69563, dated December 16, 2004, and filed December 22, 2004.
  3. Affidavit of Andre Kelley, in support of motion, dated December 16, 2004, with attachments.
  4. Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated January 31, 2005, and filed February 2, 2005.

[1]Selected unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at