Opinion
# 2014-018-517 Claim No. 123574 Motion No. M-84829
06-13-2014
ERIC EDMUNDSON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
ERIC EDMUNDSON Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esquire of Counsel
Synopsis
Claimant's motion is denied. There is no indication Claimant ever served Defendant with a discovery demand pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR; jury trials are not authorized by Court of Claims Act § 9; and Claimant has not established entitlement to any relief under CPLR 3211 (a) or (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2014-018-517 |
| Claimant(s): | ERIC EDMUNDSON |
| Claimant short name: | EDMUNDSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has amended the caption sua sponte to the reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123574 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84829 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | ERIC EDMUNDSON Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esquire of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 13, 2014 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant brings a motion to "Strike and to Compel Discovery" relying upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and CPLR 3211 (a) and (b). Defendant opposes the motion.
A claim was filed on November 27, 2013, and served upon Defendant on October 15, 2013, asserting that on July 22, 2013, Claimant, an inmate at Watertown Correctional Facility, was assaulted and called derogatory names by two correction officers and suffered injuries. The claim also asserts that Nurse Hall, in treating Claimant's injuries, failed to document his bloody nose, which he alleges was the result of one of the correction officers punching him in the face. A verified answer was served and filed on November 20, 2013.
Claimant, by this motion, seeks an order compelling the defendant to provide various documents and information as set out in the motion. There is no indication that Claimant ever served Defendant with a discovery demand in accordance with Article 31 of the CPLR. Defendant denies ever receiving a prior demand for discovery.
A motion to compel disclosure is only permitted where there has been a failure to respond or comply with "any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order" under Article 31 of the CPLR (CPLR 3124, Rodriguez v State of New York, UID No. 2012-015-307 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Mar. 12, 2012]). Claimant has failed to establish that any demand for disclosure was served upon the defendant prior to this motion or that the defendant failed to comply. His motion to compel is, therefore, premature.
Claimant also makes a request in his motion papers for a jury trial. Jury trials, however, are not authorized in the Court of Claims and, instead, all actions are tried and determined by the Court (Court of Claims § 9).
To the extent Claimant seeks relief under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, those rules have no application to an action brought in the Court of Claims. Additionally, Claimant has not established entitlement to any relief under CPLR 3211 (a) [motion to dismiss a cause of action] or (b) [motion to dismiss a defense].
Accordingly, Claimant's motion is DENIED.
June 13, 2014
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court has considered the following documents in deciding this motion:
1) Notice of Motion.
2) "Affirmation" of Claimant in support.
3) Affirmation of Thomas Trace, Esquire, of counsel to the Attorney General, in opposition.