New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNGBLOOD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-535, Claim No. 108273, Motion No. M-70098


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion to compel discovery is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-535
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY YOUNGBLOOD
Claimant short name:
YOUNGBLOOD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108273
Motion number(s):
M-70098
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
ANTHONY YOUNGBLOOD, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date:
June 8, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimant's second motion for an order compelling a response to his discovery demands. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant served a discovery demand on the State on or about March 2, 2004. After attempts to obtain responses failed, claimant filed his first motion to compel which was returnable November 10, 2004. The State's response to said motion contained its responses to claimant's discovery demands and, as such, the motion was denied as moot. (Youngblood v State of New York, Ct Cl, November 15, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 108273, Motion Nos. M-68765 & M-69020 [UID No. 2004-019-593]).[1]


By all accounts, claimant thereafter notified the State that he was dissatisfied with the responses to a portion of his discovery demands, namely six specific questions included in his original Demand for Discovery and Inspection. The six questions seek information surrounding the construction of the tent which allegedly collapsed on claimant including, among other things, the names of the inmate work crew and/or civilian staff that were involved with the tent's construction and their relative experience, if any. The State refused to provide any additional information.


Now, claimant has filed this second motion to compel in an attempt to obtain responses to those six questions. In opposition to this motion, the State avers that there are "[n]o records and information as demanded in numbers 1-6...." (Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, ¶ 4). Although claimant's questions appear material and relevant, the State has represented that such information does not exist. As such, the court cannot compel the State to produce information that does not exist. Consequently, the court finds that the State's response is proper.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Motion No. M-70098 is DENIED.

June 8, 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. 108273, Motion Nos. M-68765 & M-69020, filed November 22, 2004.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-70098, dated April 16, 2005, filed April 21, 2005.
  3. Affidavit of Anthony Youngblood, in support of motion, sworn to April 16, 2005.
  4. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated May 20, 2005, and filed May 23, 2005, with attached exhibits.

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