Claimant's motion to compel a response to his request for admissions was denied.
|Claimant(s):||RASHAWN C. HANESWORTH|
|Claimant short name:||HANESWORTH|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Rashawn C. Hanesworth, Pro se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King
Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||September 20, 2017|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, proceeding pro se, moves to compel a response to his request for admissions which is contained in his affidavit in support of the motion.
It appears from the papers submitted that claimant is confused regarding the proper procedure for requesting admissions from a party. CPLR 3123 permits a party to serve upon any other party a written request for certain admissions, which include "the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial." Here, claimant moved to compel a response to his request for admissions without serving the defendant with a notice to admit.(1) To confuse matters even more, defendant responded to the instant motion by providing a response to a document demand not addressed in the instant motion, or at least the version that was filed in the Court of Claims.(2)
Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.
September 20, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. CPLR 3123 (a) provides that "[e]ach of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within twenty days after service thereof or within such further time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters". A motion to compel a response is therefore not the proper remedy for a party's failure to respond to a notice to admit.
2. Although defense counsel references documents that were purportedly attached as Exhibits A and B to his affirmation in opposition to the motion, no documents or exhibits were attached.