New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALLOY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-033-293, Claim No. 108930, Motion No. M-74224


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-033-293
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MALLOY
Claimant short name:
MALLOY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108930
Motion number(s):
M-74224
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Anthony Malloy, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 25, 2008
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This claim alleges that employees of the State of New York (hereinafter “defendant”) transferred Anthony Malloy (hereinafter “claimant”) against his will to Ulster Correctional Facility in Napanoch, New York. Claimant further alleges that he was abused and humiliated during the transfer and defendant was trying to medicate him against his will. This occurred on July 15, 2003.


Claimant moves this Court for transfer of his case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for discovery of certain items listed in his affidavit[1].

The Court denies claimant’s motion as to the transfer of his case. There is no mechanism the Court is aware of to transfer this case from the New York State Court of Claims to the United States District Court.

In opposition to claimant’s motion for discovery, defendant argues that the motion is premature as claimant has made no request of defendant yet. Defendant also indicates that a number of the items sought are not within the control of defendant.

While the Court recognizes that claimant has not made a discovery demand prior to the motion, the Court is also cognizant claimant is pro se and not fully aware of procedure for discovery. Thus, to the extent that items listed by claimant are within the control of defendant, then defendant is to supply those items to claimant within sixty (60) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order. As to the remainder of the items, defendant must specifically state the item is not under its control.

Based upon the foregoing, claimant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.


June 25, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

HON. JAMES J. LACK
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1].The following papers have been read and considered on claimant’s motion: Notice of Motion dated November 3, 2007 and filed November 9, 2007; Notice of Affidavit in Support of Motion Request for Defendant’s Discovery Documents sworn to November 5, 2007 and filed November 9, 2007; Affirmation in Response to Claimant’s Motion of Glenn C. King, Esq. dated November 13, 2007 and filed November 14, 2007.