Opinion
CA 01-00565
July 3, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (NeMoyer, J.), entered January 2, 2001, which dismissed the claim upon a decision of the court.
HAROLD J. SHELL, JR., CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., HURLBUTT, BURNS, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Claimant appeals from a judgment dismissing his claim seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when he was allegedly assaulted by correction officers and seeking damages for lost or stolen property. The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant's motion to preclude defendant from presenting certain evidence based on defendant's alleged failure to provide claimant with discoverable materials. Defendant informed claimant that it would provide those materials upon claimant's payment of the necessary copying charges, and claimant never provided such payment. "Civil Rights Law 79(3) and 79-a (3) specifically provide that the State shall not be liable for any expense of, or related to, inmate litigation and shall not be required to perform any services related thereto, particularly where, as here, poor person status has not been granted" ( Gittens v. State of New York, 175 A.D.2d 530, 530-531). Furthermore, because claimant failed to demonstrate willful, deliberate, or contumacious behavior on the part of defendant in responding to his demand for a bill of particulars, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant's preclusion motion with respect to the items set forth in the bill of particulars ( see Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer Greenfield v. Beauchamp, 247 A.D.2d 858; see also Scott v. Lawyers Coop. Publ. Co., 101 A.D.2d 1026, 1026-1027). Finally, we conclude that the court's findings are supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see Farace v. State of New York, 266 A.D.2d 870, 870-871; see also Gallo v. State of New York, 292 A.D.2d 567).