New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PETTUS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-015-118, Claim Nos. 113704, 113705, Motion Nos. M-75756, M-75779, M-75780


Synopsis


Motion for subpoenas was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2009-015-118
Claimant(s):
JAMES PETTUS
Claimant short name:
PETTUS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113704, 113705
Motion number(s):
M-75756, M-75779, M-75780
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
James Pettus, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralNo Appearance
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 13, 2009
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In three separate motions (M-75756, M-75779, M-75780) claimant moves for the issuance of subpoenas to secure the attendance of various witnesses at trial. Additionally, in motion number M-75756 claimant seeks certain items of discovery and in motion M-75779 he seeks a subpoena compelling the defendant to produce various documents at trial[1].

Claimant's prior motions for the issuance of judicial subpoenas were denied because he failed to establish that the testimony of the proposed witnesses was both material and necessary to the prosecution of these claims. He now moves, once again, for the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of various witnesses at trial. In addition, claimant requests subpoenas for the production of various information regarding certain rules and policies governing the classification of prisons and disciplinary hearings (M-75756) and for the production of other vaguely described documents relating to his incarceration (M-75779).

Claimant's motion for subpoenas is denied as he failed to establish that the issuance of the requested subpoenas is both material and necessary to the prosecution of his claim (see, e.g., Cerasaro v Cerasaro, 9 AD3d 663 [2004]).

Claimant's request for discovery (M-75756) is denied as the proper vehicle to ascertain the requested information was one of the discovery devices set forth in article 31 of the CPLR, not a motion on the eve of trial.

Claimant's request for a subpoena to compel the production of documents (M-75779) is denied as he failed to establish that the requested documents are material and necessary to the prosecution of the claim.

Accordingly, claimants motions (M-75756, M-75779, M-75780) are denied in their entirety.


January 13, 2009
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:

M-75756
  1. Notice of Petition dated October 27, 2008;
  2. Petition of James Pettus sworn to October 24, 2008 with attachments.

M-75779

  1. Notice of Petition dated October 27, 2008;
  2. Petition of James Pettus sworn to October 27, 2008 with attachments.

M-75780

  1. Notice of Petition dated October 27, 2008;
  2. Petition of James Pettus sworn to October 27, 2008 with attachments.

[1].Although the claimant improperly denominated his request for judicial intervention as a Petition, it will be treated as a motion.