New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BINKLEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-030-570, Claim No. 115465, Motion No. M-75533


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-030-570
Claimant(s):
DAVID BINKLEY
Claimant short name:
BINKLEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115465
Motion number(s):
M-75533
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
DAVID BINKLEY, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ELYSE J. ANGELICO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 22, 2008
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


disclosure:

  1. Motion for Order to Compel Disclosure [M-75533] by David Binkley, Claimant and attached papers
  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
3-7 Filed papers: Claim, Answer, Claim Supplement (filed July 24, 2008), Answer to Claim Supplement, Claim Supplement (filed August 18, 2008)

  1. Verified Answer to Second Claim Supplement (filed September 22, 2008).
David Binkley alleges in his claim that defendant’s agents at Sing Sing Correctional Facility [Sing Sing] - specifically the package room and later the grievance and/or media review committees - wrongfully withheld from his possession Japanese language flash cards purchased for educational and religious purposes. The package room advised claimant that the cards would not be provided to him on February 1, 2008, and claimant pursued grievance claims thereafter. Such denial, he asserts, interfered with his right to free exercise of his religion. He seeks “incidental relief in the form of order to issue religious/educational ‘books,’ defined by International Standard Book Numbers as such for all intents and purposes under Federal and State law, restoring claimant’s liberty, property and due process rights . . . [and] Compensatory and/or punitive damages: $100,000.00. [Claim No. 115465, ¶¶3 and 7]. He states that on April 30, 2008 the Central Office Review Committee [CORC] issued its decision denying the grievance he filed with regard to the materials. [Claim No. 115465, ¶3]. In copies of letters claimant wrote in pursuit of his grievance, that are attached to the claim filed in the Court of Claims, claimant indicates that the materials were returned to his mother. [Letter to Central Office Media Review Committee from David Binkley dated March 10, 2008].

The present motion by claimant repeats some requests made in previous motion practice,[1] but adds additional requests for documents, and also seeks payment of expenses he alleges were incurred in pursuit of this motion.

Defendant has responded with an affirmation in opposition including legal argument with regard to some issues, as well as production of additional documents. [See Affirmation in Opposition by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General].

The request for documents already requested in previous motion practice is denied, and the request for additional documents is denied as moot, given the defendant’s production of same in response to this and other motions. The request for payment of expenses is denied. There has been no adjudication of claimant as a poor person [see Civil Practice Law and Rules §1101] nor would such adjudication necessarily entitle him to payment for litigation expenses by the State. See generally Court of Claims Act §§18 and 27; Civil Rights Law §79. The request for oral deposition of the State employees listed is also denied, for the reasons stated in the decision deciding claimant’s previous request for such depositions [see Binkley v State of New York, Claim No. 115465, M-75442 (Scuccimarra, J., filed November 10, 2008)] and also because the Court is not persuaded that the disruption to correctional facility security use of such a discovery device entails is warranted, nor is the materiality and relevance of such discovery established. See generally Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101(a). It is suggested (again) that claimant utilize written interrogatories to obtain the limited discovery necessary to prosecute this claim asserting such tenuous causes of action against the State of New York. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3130, 3131, 3132, 3133.

Based on the foregoing, claimant’s motion [M-75533] is in all respects denied.


October 22, 2008
White Plains, New York

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




[1]. This is one of four (4) motions calendared by the Clerk since issue was joined on August 7, 2008. Three were marked submitted on September 17, 2008[M-75442; M-75510; M-75457]. The present motion was calendared for October 15, 2008 [M-75533].