4-7 Filed papers: Claim; Ramos v State of New York, Decision and Order,
UID # 2007-030-572, Claim No. 112096, Motion No. M-73896 (Scuccimarra, J.,
October 23, 2007); 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.,
September 1, 2006)
Mr. Ramos alleges in Claim Number 112096 that on or about November 11,
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 any 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).
This is claimant’s fifth motion to compel discovery. It is denied.
Although this time it appears that the motion was served on the defendant since
the attorney general’s office has submitted an affirmation on the motion,
there is no indication that any requests for the documents now listed in this
motion to compel were ever otherwise 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-74771] is in all respects