New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-030-572, Claim No. 112096, Motion No. M-73896


Synopsis


Fourth motion to compel discovery brought by pro se inmate denied. Motion not served on defendant, nor were disclosure demands apparently served on defendant or filed with clerk. Documents sought not necessarily material and relevant to causes of action in claim, which alleges excessive force by correction officers and property loss. Some information available through FOIL request.

Case Information

UID:
2007-030-572
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-73896
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
WILLIAM RAMOS, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 23, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant’s motion to compel


discovery:

1-3 Notice of Motion Seeking Discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR §3120; Verification; Affidavit of Service

4-6 Filed papers: Claim, Ramos v State of New York, Decision and Order, UID # 2007-030-512, Claim No. 112096, Motion No. M-72597 (Scuccimarra, J., March 26, 2007); Ramos v State of New York, Decision and Order, UID # 2006-030-567, Claim No. 112096, Motion Nos. M-71601, M-71780 (Scuccimarra, J., October 19, 2006)

No Opposition Filed

Mr. 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.

Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101, setting forth the scope of disclosure in a civil case and applicable in the Court of Claims [see Court of Claims Act §9(9)], provides in pertinent part that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof . . . ”

When a party fails to respond in some fashion to a demand, the other party may make a motion to compel such as this one. Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3124, 3126. The party making the motion should append a copy of the demand at issue. Notably, disclosure demands - which are by nature documents served on another party - are required to be filed with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims. See 22 NYCRR §206.5(c).

Claimant’s fourth motion to compel discovery is denied. There is no proof that service of this motion was made upon the defendant, indeed the fact that no opposition was filed suggests that this motion was never received by defendant. Notably, although an affidavit of service is appended to claimant’s papers, it does not indicate when same were served and is not notarized.

Additionally, there is no indication that any requests for the documents now listed in this motion to compel were ever served on the defendant, nor have any requests been filed by claimant in the clerk’s office as required. See 22 NYCRR §206.5(c).

Finally, a review of the requests submitted here reveals that these are documents that might be readily obtainable through a Freedom of Information Law request [see Public Officers Law §89], are not necessarily material and relevant to the causes of action asserted in the subject claim, or have been provided earlier. In any event, claimant must first serve his demand on the defendant, file the demand so served with the Clerk’s office, and only then if no response is received bring a motion to compel.

As claimant was told in earlier decisions, making successive, duplicative discovery motions does not move this matter forward.

Claimant’s motion to compel discovery [M-73896] is in all respects denied.


October 23, 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].