New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHEPHERD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-520, Claim No. 109648, Motion No. M-69686


Synopsis


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

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-520
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):
109648
Motion number(s):
M-69686
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 is a bailment claim relating to claimant's missing and damaged personal property including photographs, a radio, and typewriter.[1] (Claim, ¶ ¶ 12-15).


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 to the demands, but indicates that it mailed discovery responses to claimant (with two exceptions) at the same time it responded to this motion. The State asserts that it requested but has not yet received claimant's disbursement forms from 2001 through October 2003 or claimant's package file of items received during 2000, 2001, and 2003. The State represents that it did not charge claimant for photocopying costs as it could have for the items recently provided and that it will also forward to claimant the remaining items, also presumably without cost, as soon as they are received.


The court finds that there is no prejudice resulting from 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 and the State's representation that the remaining items will be provided to claimant immediately upon their receipt, 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-69686, 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 July 23, 2004.
  2. Verified Answer, filed August 30, 2004
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-69686, dated January, 2005, and filed February 2, 2005.
  4. Affidavit of Eon Shepherd, in support of motion, sworn to January 30, 2005.
  5. Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated March 9, 2005, and filed March 11, 2005.
  6. "Claimant's Affirmation in Reply to Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition", of Eon Shepherd, dated, March 14, 2005, and filed March 17, 2005.


[1]The court notes that claimant has another pending bailment claim including photographs and a typewriter, although it is unclear if these two claims involve the same property. (Shepherd v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 5, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 102856, Motion No. M-68225 [UID No. 2004-019-540]). Selected unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at