New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KALWASINSKI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-023, Claim No. 104011, Motion Nos. M-70648, M-70850


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-023
Claimant(s):
MITCHELL KALWASINSKI
Claimant short name:
KALWASINSKI
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104011
Motion number(s):
M-70648, M-70850
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
Mitchell Kalwasinski, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Kathleen M. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 20, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

By Decision filed December 20, 2005, the Court dismissed claimant's action alleging that his property was destroyed in retaliation for filing grievances against certain correction officers. After trial in this matter on August 17, 2005, but before the Court issued its Decision, claimant moved by separate motions for the production of certain documents (M-70648) and a new trial (M-70850). For the reasons to be stated, the Court denies all relief.

Although claimant moved prior to this Court's decision, the dismissal of his claim renders his application for production of documents moot (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]. Even if the claimant's request was not moot, the request would be denied. Claimant alleges that he requested certain materials from defendant no later than May 5, 2005. Given that claimant failed to move to compel defendant to provide these documents, and failed to make any objection prior to or during his trial, claimant's request is untimely.

With respect to claimant's motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4402,[1] this request is likewise denied. Claimant argues that due to the lack of documents requested in his motion M-70648, a new trial is warranted. Inasmuch as the Court denies claimant's document request contained in motion M-70648, there is no reason to grant a new trial.

Accordingly, claimant's motions M-70850 and M-70648, are denied.



March 20, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed September 2, 2005;

2. Affidavit of Mitchell Kalwasinski sworn to August 26, 2005;

3. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold dated September 27, 2005;

4. Notice of Motion filed October 20, 2005;

5. Affidavit of Mitchell Kalwasinski sworn to October 17, 2005;

6. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold dated October 28, 2005.




[1]CPLR 4402 provides that "[a]t any time during the trial, the court, on motion of any party, may order a continuance or a new trial in the interest of justice on such terms as may be just.