New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOYE v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-018-546, Claim No. 110556, Motion No. M-71957


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion is denied - responses to discovery have already been received by Claimant.

Case Information

UID:
2006-018-546
Claimant(s):
KELVIN MOYE
Claimant short name:
MOYE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110556
Motion number(s):
M-71957
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Claimant’s attorney:
KELVIN MOYEPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Thomas M. Trace, Esquire
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 12, 2006
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant brings a motion for an Order compelling Defendant, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to

comply with his discovery demands. Claimant asserts he served Defendant on May 30, 2006 with demands for discovery, and as of the date of service of the motion, June 27, 2006, he had not yet received responses. No copy of Claimant’s discovery demand was provided.

Defendant responds to the motion and argues that responses to Claimant’s demand were served on June 30, 2006. Defendant received Claimant’s discovery demand on June 12, 2006. Copies of the demand and Defendant’s responses are included with Defendant’s responding papers.

Based upon the foregoing, Claimant’s motion is denied as Defendant has now provided the demanded discovery.



December 12, 2006
Syracuse, New York

HON. DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court has considered the following documents in deciding this motion:


Notice of Motion................................................................................................1


Affidavit of Kelvin Moye, in support, sworn to June 27, 2006..........................2


Affirmation of Thomas M. Trace, Esquire, in opposition, with exhibits

attached thereto.......................................................................................3