New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GANOE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-009-034, Claim No. 114372-A, Motion No. M-77077


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to compel discovery was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2009-009-034
Claimant(s):
BILLY D. GANOE, JR.
Claimant short name:
GANOE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114372-A
Motion number(s):
M-77077
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
BILLY D. GANOE, JR., Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General
BY: Bonnie G. Levy, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 8, 2009
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking to compel the defendant to produce certain items set forth in his previously served Notice for Discovery and Inspection.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support, with Exhibits 1,2


Affirmation in Opposition, with Exhibits 3

Reply Affidavit, with Exhibits 4

This is a claim sounding in bailment, as claimant alleges that the State lost or misplaced certain items of his personal property while he was confined to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Cayuga Correctional Facility. Claimant alleges that he discovered this loss on or about July 21, 2007 when he was released from SHU.

Claimant has established that he previously served a “Notice for Discovery and Inspection” to which this motion is addressed.

In response to this motion, defendant’s attorney has attached a copy of her response to these demands, and has affirmed that this response was simultaneously served on claimant when she responded to the motion. In his reply, claimant contends that the responses are inadequate. Specifically, claimant has objected to defendant’s responses to Demands Nos. 8, 9, and 10, demands to which defendant has not provided the information requested.

In Demand No. 8, claimant requests a copy of a Notice of Intention regarding a medical claim which allegedly was served upon the Attorney General’s Office between March 2007 and May 2007. Defendant has objected to this demand and argues that this document is totally unrelated to the instant claim, which involves a bailment and not a medical claim.

The Court hereby finds that this document requested by claimant bears no relevance whatsoever to the instant claim, and has no evidentiary or probative value whatsoever. Based upon the fact that it cannot reasonably lead to any admissible evidence, defendant need not respond to this demand.

In Demand No. 9, claimant requests information leading to the identity of the inmate porter who was on duty on July 21, 2007, when claimant discovered his loss.

The Court finds that the identity of the inmate porter is not necessary for claimant to maintain this action sounding in bailment, nor can such information reasonably be expected to lead to any admissible evidence. The Court therefore finds that defendant need not respond to this demand.

In Demand No. 10, claimant seeks disclosure of the August 29, 2007 work schedule for a Correction Officer Brown. This demand is also totally irrelevant to the claim at hand, since claimant alleges that his loss of personal property occurred on or before July 21, 2007. Release of this information, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to lead to any admissible evidence, and defendant therefore need not respond to this demand.

Based on the fact that defendant has now provided a response to claimant’s “Notice for Discovery and Inspection”, and the Court’s resolution of any remaining issues herein, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-77077 is hereby DENIED in its entirety.


December 8, 2009
Syracuse, New York
HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims