New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRADY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; Governor George Pataki, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, #2007-028-571, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-73541


Synopsis


Movant’s second motion to certify a record on appeal is denied because of his continued failure to provide a complete copy of the record which can be certified. Options available to him are outlined.


Case Information

UID:
2007-028-571
Claimant(s):
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY
Claimant short name:
BRADY
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK; Governor George Pataki, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-73541
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 27, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Movant’s “Second Motion to Certify Record for Appeal” :

1. Notice of Motion of Kevin Patrick Brady, with annexed Exhibits.

Movant has filed and served a “Second Motion to Certify Record on Appeal”. In this Court’s decision on the original motion to certify the record (Brady v the State of New York, UID #2007-028-543, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-72717 [Ct Cl April 3, 2007], Sise, PJ), the reasons for denying that motion and the next steps that Movant could take were outlined in detail. Subsequently, there was correspondence between Movant and the Court in which the options available to him were outlined as follows:
It would appear that you have two options at this point. You may request from the office of the Chief Clerk a copy of any of the 32 documents (as listed in the decision on Motion No. M-72717) that you do not currently possess. If there are duplicate copies of any of the documents in the Court's file, they will be sent to you without charge. If there are no duplicate copies, there will be a minimal charge for making and providing copies to you. Should you wish to exercise this option, the Clerk's office will let you know ahead of time how many pages will have to be copied anew. Upon receipt of payment, the copies then will be sent to you.

Alternatively, as noted in Judge Sise's decision, you continue to have the option of entering into a stipulation with defense counsel as to the record, or the relevant portion of the record, that is to be submitted on appeal pursuant to CPLR 5532. Please note, however, that as Mr. Demuth has stated in his letter to you dated December 8, 2006, the Attorney General's office also requires a proof containing the documents you intend to submit before it can enter into such a stipulation.

In a letter annexed to the Notice of Motion, Movant has requested counsel for Defendant to “copy from your files whatever item or items are missing so that the Court can certify the record.” This is not an option that is available to Movant, and Defendant has no obligation to incur expenses and expend other resources to duplicate most of a 732-page record, consisting primarily of submissions made by Movant.

Movant’s motion is DENIED.


August 27, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims