New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SUMPTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-030-540, Claim No. 110098, Motion No. M-69958


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-030-540
Claimant(s):
JON SUMPTER
Claimant short name:
SUMPTER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110098
Motion number(s):
M-69958
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
JON SUMPTER, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: DEWEY LEE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 14, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on Claimant's motion to compel discovery, brought pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §3124:
1,2 Notice of Motion, Claimant's Affidavit by Jon Sumpter, and attached papers

3 Affirmation by Dewey Lee, Assistant Attorney General and attached Response

4,5 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

Jon Sumpter alleges in Claim number 110098, among other things, that Defendant's agents failed to provide him with adequate medical care while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility (hereafter Downstate), and caused him further harm by assigning him the top bunk in a cell, from which he fell and suffered injury on or about November 17, 2003, despite a documented medical condition suggesting he should be placed in a different location. In its answer, in addition to general denials, Defendant asserts three affirmative defenses.

In "Claimants (sic) first demand For documents and things" served upon the Attorney General some time ago, Claimant seeks production of various documents pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §3120. Since the documents were apparently not produced pursuant to consent discovery, Claimant made the present motion.

Attached to the Assistant Attorney General's Affirmation, is a voluminous Response, seemingly containing the documents requested. They appear to have been furnished to the Claimant without a charge for the cost of copying same. The Defendant asks that the motion be denied as moot.

Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101, setting forth the scope of disclosure in a civil case and applicable in the Court of Claims [See Court of Claims Act §9(9)], provides in pertinent part that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of any action, regardless of the burden of proof . . . "

When a party fails to respond in some fashion to a demand, the other party may make a motion to compel such as this one. Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3124, 3126. The party making the motion should append a copy of the demand at issue. Notably, disclosure demands - which are by nature documents served on another party - are required to be filed with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims. See 22 NYCRR §206.5(c).

Accordingly, and based upon the declarations of the Assistant Attorney General that what items are available for copying and inspection were indeed made available to Claimant, Motion Number M-69958 is hereby denied.

July 14, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims