New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

COLWELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-009-024, Claim No. 112757, Motion No. M-73451


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for sanctions was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-009-024
Claimant(s):
BRYCE M. COLWELL
Claimant short name:
COLWELL
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112757
Motion number(s):
M-73451
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
BRYCE M. COLWELL, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General
BY: Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 4, 2007
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous conduct with respect to his pending claim.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support 1,2


Affirmation in Response 3

In his Affidavit in Support (Item 2), claimant contends that the defendant has engaged in frivolous conduct by failing to respond to his discovery demands, despite several attempts by claimant at securing such a response.

Claimant, however, had previously brought a motion seeking an order compelling the State to respond to these discovery demands. By a Decision and Order dated March 29, 2007[1], this Court granted claimant’s motion, in part, and granted the State a protective order with respect to certain items demanded by the claimant.

In the instant motion, claimant has made no allegations that the defendant has failed to comply with any of the directives set forth in this Court’s prior Decision and Order. Interestingly, claimant, in fact, has made no allegations whatsoever with respect to any actions taken by the defendant subsequent to this Court’s prior Decision and Order of March 29, 2007. Claimant, therefore, has not established any basis either in law or fact on which this Court could justify the imposition of sanctions against the defendant.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-73451 is hereby DENIED.


September 4, 2007
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. Motion No. M-72666.