From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fulwiley v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 30, 2015
# 2015-050-006 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 30, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-050-006 Claim No. 122709 Motion No. M-85810

01-30-2015

TERRY FULWILEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Terry Fulwiley, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Darren Longo, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Claimant moved for relief pursuant to CPLR 3214, specifically, for an order compelling defendant to comply with a notice for discovery and inspection served by claimant. The defendant, in his Reply Affirmation, represents that he mailed the Defendant's Bill of Particulars on November 13, 2014. Defendant also answered Claimant's discovery request in said Reply Affirmation. The claimant's motion is denied as moot.

Case information


UID:

2015-050-006

Claimant(s):

TERRY FULWILEY

Claimant short name:

FULWILEY

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

122709

Motion number(s):

M-85810

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

STEPHEN J. LYNCH

Claimant's attorney:

Terry Fulwiley, Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Darren Longo, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

January 30, 2015

City:

Hauppauge

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant moves for relief pursuant to CPLR 3214, specifically, for an order compelling defendant to comply with claimant's demand for complete and full discovery," which is in the nature of a notice for discovery and inspection served on July 1, 2014 and demand for a bill of particulars as to affirmative defenses. In opposing the motion, defendant's attorney asserts that he has complied with all discovery requests.

After this moitn was served the defendant served its bill of particulars in response to claimant's demand for a bill of particulars. The defendant has laos responded to the claimant's "demand for complete and full discovery" through the affitmation of defendnat's counsel who, in gerneral terms, indicates that requests for inforamtion and itenms of evidence have been conveyed by counsel and that responses will be provided when available.

Insofar as the climant seeks releif concerning the claimant's demand for a bill of particulars as to affirmative defenses, the motion is denied at moot. The remainder of the motion, directed at the (so designated) "demand for complete and full discovery and inspection") is determined as follows: Defendant is compelled to provide to claimant a written detailed responmse to the claimant's demand served July 1, 2013 within 60 days of the filing of this decision and order and the response shall be by affidavits(s) of person(s) with knowledge concerning the particular items of said demand. Such response shall be served and filed within the said 60-day period.

January 30, 2015

Hauppauge, New York

STEPHEN J. LYNCH

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the claimant's motion and the defendant's cross-motion:

1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, Affidavit with Exhibits A through E.

2. Defendant's Reply Affirmation.


Summaries of

Fulwiley v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 30, 2015
# 2015-050-006 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 30, 2015)
Case details for

Fulwiley v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRY FULWILEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 30, 2015

Citations

# 2015-050-006 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 30, 2015)