New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHEPHERD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-519, Claim No. 108486, Motion No. M-69734


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel discovery is denied as moot.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-519
Claimant(s):
EON SHEPHERD
Claimant short name:
SHEPHERD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108486
Motion number(s):
M-69734
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
EON SHEPHERD, 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:
March 21, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for an order compelling disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

This claim alleges that the State has failed to enforce a smoking ban within the Elmira Correctional Facility, as well as alleging the State has failed to provide claimant with prescriptions and medical boots.


By way of this motion, claimant alleges that the State has failed to respond to his discovery demands. In response, the State concedes a delay in responding thereto, but indicates that it has mailed discovery responses to claimant (with one exception) while also responding to this motion. The State asserts that it is unable to respond to claimant's requests for smoking related grievances because grievances are not indexed by subject matter.


The court finds the State's response on the issue of smoking related grievances to be proper and further finds no prejudice due to the State's delay in responding to claimant's discovery demands since this matter is not yet scheduled for trial. In view of the foregoing, claimant's motion to compel discovery will be denied as moot.


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that claimant's motion, Motion No. M-69734, is DENIED AS MOOT.


March 21, 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. Claim, filed November 3, 2003.
  2. Amended Claim, filed March 8, 2004.
  3. Verified Answer, filed December 8, 2003
  4. Notice of Motion No. M-69734, dated January, 2005, and filed February 14, 2005.
  5. Unsworn Affidavit of Eon Shepherd, in support of motion.
  6. Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated March 9, 2005, and filed March 11, 2005.
  7. "Claimant's Affirmation in Reply to Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition", of Eon Shepherd, dated March 14, 2005, and filed March 18, 2005.