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
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
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.