New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VANHOESEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-028-511, Claim No. 111149, Motion No. M-71801


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-028-511
Claimant(s):
LEVAR VANHOESEN
Claimant short name:
VANHOESEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111149
Motion number(s):
M-71801
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
LEVAR VANHOESEN, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Michael W. Friedman, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 17, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on claimant’s motion to compel discovery:
  1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation of Levar Vanhoesen, Pro se, filed May 22, 2006;
  2. Affirmation in Opposition of Michael W. Friedman, Esq., AAG with annexed Exhibits A-E, filed June 14, 2006;
  3. Claim, filed July 15, 2005.

Claimant, Levar Vanhoesen (“claimant”), injured while using a buffing machine at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in January 2004, filed the instant motion to compel discovery. He seeks an order to produce certain records pertaining to the accident that is the subject of the claim as requested in his Notice to Produce served upon defendant, State of New York, on October 5, 2005. Defendant urges the Court to deny the motion as moot because the discovery demands have already been answered to the extent possible.

A review of the exhibits annexed to defendant’s motion papers evidences that claimant’s discovery demands have been satisfied except for the production of certain photographs that, according to the response from the Department of Correctional Services to defendant, do not exist (Affidavit of Michael W. Friedman, Esq., AAG, filed June 14, 2006, Exhibit D). Claimant’s remaining demands for log book notes, reports pertaining to the alleged incident and photographs taken of claimant’s injuries, all appear to have been produced at this time, however.

Given these facts, the Court denies claimant’s motion to compel discovery as moot.


January 17, 2008
Albany, New York

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