New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MATOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-042-515, Claim Nos. 116907, 116944, Motion Nos. M-76938, CM-77018


Synopsis


This motion is made by claimant seeking a 90-day extension of time within which to respond to defendant’s discovery demands. Defendant cross-moves seeking an order directing that this claim be deemed an amendment of another pre-existing claim brought by claimant. The court grants claimant’s motion for a 90-day extension, and grants defendant’s motion deeming this claim to be an amendment of a prior claim.

Case Information

UID:
2009-042-515
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL MATOTT
Claimant short name:
MATOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
116907, 116944
Motion number(s):
M-76938
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-77018
Judge:
NORMAN I. SIEGEL
Claimant’s attorney:
MICHAEL MATOTT, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: THOMAS M. TRACE, ESQ.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 9, 2009
City:
Utica
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The court has considered the following papers on claimant’s motion for an extension of time within which to answer discovery demands, and defendant’s cross-motion seeking an order directing that claim number 116944 be deemed an amendment of claim number 116907:
  1. Notice of Motion, filed July 9, 2009
  2. Affidavit of Michael Matott, sworn to July 7, 2009
  3. Affirmation of Thomas M. Trace, Esq., dated July 28, 2009
  4. Notice of Cross-Motion, filed July 28, 2009
  5. Affirmation of Thomas M. Trace, Esq., dated July 28, 2009
  6. Exhibits A - B, annexed to the cross-moving papers

This matter comes before the court on a motion by the pro se claimant seeking a 90-day extension of time within which to respond to the defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars. The defendant responded to the motion and filed a cross-motion seeking an order directing that claim number 116944 be deemed an amendment of claim number 116907.

Defense counsel has advised the court, by affirmation, that the defendant has no opposition to claimant’s motion for an extension of time.

Accordingly, claimant’s motion is granted to the extent that claimant has 90 days from the date of filing of this decision and order to respond to defendant’s discovery demands and demand for bill of particulars.

Turning to defendant’s cross-motion, a review of both claims makes it clear that claim number 116944 is in fact simply an amendment to claim number 116907. Given that the State has no objection to the amendment of the prior claim, and given the lack of opposition of the claimant to an order deeming this claim to be an amendment of the prior claim, defendant’s motion is granted. Claim number 116944 shall be deemed closed, and the claim itself shall be re-titled as an amended claim for claim number 116907. Claimant’s filing fee for claim number 116944 is to be refunded. Likewise, all pleadings and prior disclosure shall be deemed to be part of the prior claim file, the outstanding disclosure in this case shall be deemed to be disclosure under claim number 116907, and the grant of the 90-day extension to claimant shall apply to claim number 116907.



September 9, 2009
Utica, New York

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