Opinion
# 2017-015-257 Claim No. 128274 Motion No. M-90650
08-08-2017
DMITRY KRUGLOV v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Dmitry Kruglov, Pro Se No Appearance
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to compel discovery was granted without opposition.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-257 |
| Claimant(s): | DMITRY KRUGLOV |
| Claimant short name: | KRUGLOV |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128274 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90650 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Dmitry Kruglov, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | No Appearance |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 8, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124.
The claim seeks damages alleging that the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) provided claimant improper instruction with respect to the appropriate procedure to obtain restoration of his driving privileges in New York. Claimant now moves to compel a response to his demand for discovery which was served on or about February 13, 2017.
In a telephone conference with the Court on April 12, 2017, defense counsel represented that the documents demanded by the claimant had been requested from the NYSDMV and that he would provide a response no later than April 28, 2017 . In the event no response was forthcoming, claimant was advised to proceed with the instant motion. According to the claimant, defendant continues to ignore his requests for discovery. Notably, defendant has not opposed the instant motion.
The provision set forth in CPLR 3101 (a) affording litigants full disclosure of all matters that are "material and necessary" to the prosecution or defense of an action has been interpreted liberally by the Court of Appeals to require the disclosure "of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see also Wiggins v Kopko, 105 AD3d 1132 [3d Dept 2013]). Defendant does not contend that claimant's discovery demands were improper or otherwise inclusive of privileged material. Indeed, defense counsel has submitted no opposition to the motion. Accordingly, defendant is directed to respond to claimant's demands for discovery, served on or about February 13, 2017, no later than 20 days after the date the instant Decision and Order is filed.
Based on the foregoing, claimant's motion is granted and the defendant is ordered to serve a response to claimant's demands for discovery, served on or about February 13, 2017, within 20 days of the date the instant Decision and Order is filed.
August 8, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated June 26, 2017 with attachments.