Opinion
# 2016-040-049 Claim No. 127580 Motion No. M-88404
07-08-2016
RAMON COSME v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ramon Cosme, 93A6414, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce documents denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-049 |
| Claimant(s): | RAMON COSME |
| Claimant short name: | COSME |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127580 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88404 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Ramon Cosme, 93A6414, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 8, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's Motion to direct Defendant to produce documents and records pursuant to CPLR 3120 is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on February 29, 2016, alleges that, on September 20, 2015, while incarcerated at Eastern NY Correctional Facility, Claimant was issued a false misbehavior report as a result of racism by a State employee; that he was wrongfully confined to the Special Housing Unit; that a second misbehavior report was written in retaliation against him; and that some of his personal property was damaged or destroyed as a result of the State's negligence.
Claimant seeks an order directing Defendant to produce documents for discovery and inspection. He attached a Discovery Demand to his Notice of Motion, which lists the documents he is requesting the Court direct Defendant produce. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Claimant has not served a discovery demand upon the State relating to this Claim (Affirmation in Opposition of Glenn C. King, Esq., ¶ 6).
CPLR 3120(1) provides, in pertinent part, that, after commencement of an action, a party may serve upon another party a notice to produce designated documents or any other things in the possession or control of the party being served. However, the party seeking discovery has to serve a discovery demand upon the other party and designate the items it is seeking. Here, Claimant has failed to establish he has complied with these requirements. In addition, CPLR 3124 allows a party seeking disclosure to make a motion to compel that disclosure, only if the other party fails to comply with a discovery demand. Here, there is no evidence that Defendant failed to comply with a discovery demand made by Claimant.
The Motion to compel the State to provide discovery, therefore, is denied.
July 8, 2016
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion to compel: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Discovery requests 1 Affirmation in Opposition 2 Papers Filed: Claim, Verified Answer