New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SKINNER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-042-508, Claim No. 114403A, Motion No. M-74432


Synopsis


This is a motion brought by claimant requesting a 90 day extension of time to answer defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars. Claimant’s motion was thereafter adjourned for more than 90 days with the intention that the motion would then be unnecessary. On the return date of the motion the demands were not yet answered by claimant and the Attorney General consented to a further extension. The court has granted claimant’s motion for an extension of time and granted an additional 45 day extension of time to claimant to answer defendant’s demands.

Case Information

UID:
2008-042-508
Claimant(s):
ROBERT SKINNER
Claimant short name:
SKINNER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114403A
Motion number(s):
M-74432
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NORMAN I. SIEGEL
Claimant’s attorney:
ROBERT SKINNER, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: JOEL L. MARMELSTEIN, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 14, 2008
City:
Utica
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a motion brought by claimant requesting a 90 day extension of time to answer defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars. The following papers were considered by the court:
  1. "Motion for Extention [sic] of Time", filed December 5, 2007
  2. Chambers' letter, dated January 23, 2008
  3. Letter of Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq., Assistant Attorney General In Charge, dated February 12, 2008
_______________________________________

On December 5, 2007, the pro se claimant filed a motion seeking an extension of time within which to respond to defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars (collectively referred to herein as the “disclosure demands”). By letter dated January 23, 2008, my law clerk, upon my instructions to do so, corresponded with the claimant and with the Attorney General and advised that the aforementioned motion was calendared for March 5, 2008. The purpose of the late return date was to give the claimant approximately 90 days, from his original filing date, in which to respond to the disclosure demands. It was my expectation that all discovery would be completed by the motion return date. I have not heard further from the claimant; however, I have received a letter dated February 12, 2008 from the Assistant Attorney General In Charge consenting to a further extension to the claimant until April 15, 2008, for the claimant’s submission of papers.

Thus far the claimant has been extended every courtesy by both the Attorney General’s Office and the Court with regard to the opportunity for additional time within which to respond to defendant’s disclosure demands. Accordingly, claimant’s motion is granted to the extent that claimant has until April 15, 2008 within which to respond to defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars.



March 14, 2008
Utica, New York

HON. NORMAN I. SIEGEL
Judge of the Court of Claims