New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TOWNER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-028-574, Claim No. 113601, Motion No. M-73300


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2007-028-574
Claimant(s):
JAMES TOWNER, PRO SE
Claimant short name:
TOWNER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113601
Motion number(s):
M-73300
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
JAMES TOWNER, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Michael W. Friedman, Esq.Assistant 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 Claimant’s motion for an order compelling the release of certain information:

1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Letter of James Towner, pro se;


2. Affirmation in Opposition of Michael W. Friedman;


3. Reply letter of James Towner, pro se;


3. Reply letter of James Towner, pro se, with annexed Exhibits; and


4. Notice For Production of Papers and Affidavit in Support of James Towner, pro se.


Filed papers: Claim; Answer


This is a wrongful confinement action that accrued on or about June 14, 2006, when Claimant was released from keeplock at Coxsackie Correctional Facility. The information that Claimant seeks to obtain by way of this motion is minimal: “the name of the official who, on June 14th, 2006, authorized C.O. Decker of F-2 Company to release [Claimant] from keep-lock status, from June 6th, 2006 thru June 14th 2006" (Notice of Motion). The individual is later described as the person who was in the Tier Hearing Office on June 13, 2006, at which time he allegedly spoke to C.O. Decker.

When counsel for Defendant replied that the State had not yet been served with a discovery demand and, therefore, that the motion to compel was premature (Friedman affirmation, ¶¶6, 7), Claimant asserted that he had served the discovery demand on the Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility. In a letter dated May 23, 2007, the Court informed Claimant that service of such documents must be made on the Attorney General (by mail or in person by service on an Assistant Attorney General). This motion was adjourned to give Claimant time to effect service of the discovery demand.

Although the Court has received several submissions after that letter was sent, the Assistant Attorney General assigned to defend this action states that the last communication he received from Claimant arrived before the Court’s letter and that none of those communications were recognizable as a discovery demand.

Claimant’s motion must be DENIED as moot. In the interest of saving time and needless effort on the part of all concerned, however, the Court directs Defendant to provide Claimant with the name of the person who spoke with C.O. Decker regarding Claimant’s release from keeplock on June 14, 2006 and the name of the person, if any, assigned to be in the Tier Hearing Office on June 13, 2006, recognizing that the same individual may fit both of these descriptions.


August 27, 2007
Albany, New York

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