New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROGERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-038-515, Claim No. 110433, Motion No. M-72391


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2007-038-515
Claimant(s):
ROBERT ROGERS
Claimant short name:
ROGERS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110433
Motion number(s):
M-72391
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
ROBERT ROGERS, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Stephen J. Maher, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 21, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

By Decision and Order dated February 1, 2007, this Court held in abeyance claimant’s motion to compel defendant to produce documents providing information about individuals who were passengers on a transport bus between Franklin and Upstate Correctional Facilities on December 1, 2003. Defense counsel represented that defendant lacked records of that information. The motion was assigned a new return date to allow defendant the opportunity to submit that information in admissible form.

Defendant has now submitted the affidavit of Carolyn St. Denis, who avers of her personal knowledge that, in accordance with DOCS procedures, the document containing such information has been discarded or destroyed. Claimant has not responded to defendant’s submission in opposition to the adjourned motion. Inasmuch as the information sought by claimant is unavailable, and as defendant has responded to the remainder of the items recited in claimant’s motion, the motion will be denied.

Motion No. M-72391 is DENIED.


March 21, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers considered:

(1) Notice of Motion, filed October 12, 2006;

(2) Discovery Demand, sworn to September 13, 2006;

(3) Correspondence of Stephen J. Maher, Esq., AAG, dated October 19, 2006;

(4) Correspondence of Stephen J. Maher, Esq., AAG, dated October 20, 2006;

(5) Claimant’s Discovery Demand, filed February 8, 2006;

(6) Defendant’s Response to Discovery, filed June 2, 2006;

(7) Defendant’s First Supplemental Response to Discovery, filed November 13, 2006;

(8) Decision and Order, dated February 1, 2007;

(9) Affirmation in Opposition of Stephen J. Maher, Esq., AAG, dated February 23, 2007,

with Exhibit A;

(10) Affidavit of Carolyn St. Denis, sworn to February 13, 2007.