New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
DOLBERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-040-077, Claim No. 129253, Motion No. M-90250


Pro se Claimant's "request for admissions" denied.

Case information

UID: 2017-040-077
Claimant short name: DOLBERRY
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 129253
Motion number(s): M-90250
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Andre Dolberry, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: July 6, 2017
City: Albany
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


For the reasons set forth below, the Motion of pro se Claimant, Andre Dolberry, for a "request for Admissions" is denied.

This pro se Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on February 1, 2017, alleges that, on August 18, 2016, while incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility, Claimant was assaulted by four inmates as a result of the State's failure to properly supervise them. The Claim also asserts that Claimant lost some of his personal property when, after the assault, he was transferred to the Special Housing Unit.

CPLR 3123(a) provides in pertinent part:

At any time after service of the answer or after the expiration of twenty days from service of the summons, whichever is sooner, and not later than twenty days before trial, a party may serve upon any other party a written request for admission by the latter of the genuineness of any papers or documents, or the correctness or fairness of representation of any photographs, described in and served with the request, or of the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry.

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 Christina Calabrese, Esq., 4). Claimant failed to set forth that he served a Notice to Admit upon Defendant. Thus, there is no evidence that Defendant failed to comply with a Notice to Admit made by Claimant.

The Motion for Admissions is denied.

July 6, 2017

Albany, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion "for Admissions":

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion and Statement in Support 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2

Claimant's Reply 3

Papers Filed: Claim, Answer