New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-038-566, Claim No. 116414, Motion No. M-76738


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to compel production of documents denied. Claimant has not demonstrated that he served a discovery demand that pertains to this claim.

Case Information

UID:
2009-038-566
Claimant(s):
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON
Claimant short name:
JOHNSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
116414
Motion number(s):
M-76738
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Michael C. Rizzo, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 21, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim on February 11, 2009, in which claimant asserts a single cause of action seeking compensation for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an alleged denial by defendant’s agents of claimant’s medications on December 29 and 30, 2008. On April 13, 2009, claimant filed his “Disclosure Requests for Production of Documents” with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims. Claimant now moves pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 3126 for an order compelling defendant to produce the requested documents. Defendant opposes the motion. Although this motion is noticed as one to compel discovery, the parties’ submissions on this motion are addressed almost exclusively to whether this claim was ever served upon the Attorney General. Claimant asserts that this claim was served on the Attorney General along with claim No. 116468 (see Johnson Affidavit, ¶ 3). Defendant asserts that the claim was never served upon the Attorney General (see Rizzo Affirmation, ¶ 5), and that the answer that defendant served with this claim number upon it was actually an answer to claimant’s claim No. 116467 that was mis-captioned with No. 116414 (see Rizzo Affirmation, ¶ 11; Exhibit C). While claimant disputes defendant’s version of these events, the Court will deny claimant’s motion for the reason below.

As noted above, this claim, No. 116414, asserts one cause of action flowing from the alleged denial of medications on two dates in December 2008. Claimant’s submission on the motion does not include a copy of a discovery demand with which claimant seeks compliance, but he did file a discovery demand on April 13, 2009 which he designated as applicable to this claim, No. 116414. That discovery demand, however, clearly pertains to a claim that asserts five causes of action relating to alleged incidents that occurred in January 2009, and has no demands relating to the alleged denial of claimant’s medications. Accordingly, because claimant has not demonstrated that he has served a discovery demand that pertains to this claim, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-76738 is DENIED.

September 21, 2009
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers considered
:


(1) Claim No. 116414, filed February 11, 2009;

(2) Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery, dated May 18, 2009;

(3) Claimant’s Disclosure Requests for Production of Documents, filed April 13, 2009;

(4) Affidavit of Johnathan Johnson in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery,

sworn to May 19, 2009, with exhibits A-D;

(5) Affirmation in Opposition of Michael C. Rizzo, AAG, dated June 24, 2009, with

Exhibits A-I.