New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-030-512, Claim No. 112096, Motion No. M-72597


Synopsis


Inmate claimant’s motion to compel discovery is in all respects denied. The documents requested in earlier motion practice have either been provided, or Claimant has received written confirmation that none exist. Claim alleges correctional personnel used excessive force when removing claimant from his cell for a search, and damaged or destroyed his property. Making successive, duplicative, discovery motions discouraged

Case Information

UID:
2007-030-512
Claimant(s):
WILLIAM RAMOS
Claimant short name:
RAMOS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112096
Motion number(s):
M-72597
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
WILLIAM RAMOS, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: MARY B. KAVANEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 6, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 6 were read and considered on Claimant’s motion to


compel disclosure:

1,2 Notice of Motion by William Ramos, Claimant; Affidavit of Service

  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Mary B. Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
4,5 Filed Papers: Claim, Ramos v State of New York, Decision and Order, UID#2006-030-567, Claim No. 112096, Motion No. M-71601, M-71780 (Scuccimarra, J., September 1, 2006), and underlying papers

William Ramos alleges in Claim Number 112096 that on or about November 11, 2005[1] Defendant’s agents at Green Haven Correctional Facility used excessive force when removing him from his cell for a search, and damaged or destroyed his property. The Claim was filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims on March 17, 2006.

The documents requested in earlier motion practice have either been provided, or Claimant has received written confirmation that none exist. Claimant, perhaps misconstruing the tenor of the response by Defendant, now moves to compel production of essentially the same material. Civil Practice Law and Rules §3124. As indicated by the Assistant Attorney General, Claimant has been provided - as directed by the Court - with written confirmation that no photographs exist [See Affirmation in Opposition by Mary B. Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit 4] as well as log book entries for the period requested [Ibid. ¶9].

While Claimant makes arguments concerning the inferences to be drawn from the lack of certain documents and/or photographs, these arguments are more properly raised during the trial of the claim. For example, he complains that he has not received “the Watch Commander’s log book entry that authorized the cell search of said Claimant conducted on the 11th day of December, 2005.” [Notice of Motion, ¶1]. If indeed such entries or related entries exist, and have not been provided to the Claimant upon his demand and payment for copies of same, then upon the trial of the matter, Defendant may well be precluded from using them on its own case. To the same effect, if demand has been made and refused for production of any of the paperwork associated with the alleged cell search and/or related disciplinary proceedings, or there has been no response as required, there are consequences during the trial of the matter. Making successive, duplicative, discovery motions will not, however, move this matter forward and is discouraged.

The present motion to compel is in all respects denied.

March 6, 2007
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims



[1]. Elsewhere in the claim he asserts a date of accrual of December 11, 2005. [Claim Number 112096, ¶10].