Pro se Claimant's Motion for a telephone conference denied.
|Claimant short name:||DOLBERRY|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY|
|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:||October 31, 2017|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion of pro se Claimant, Andre Dolberry, for a telephone conference 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.
In his Motion papers, Claimant asserts that he is seeking a conference for a preliminary hearing and to have Defendant comply with the discovery rules.
As a preliminary matter, a motion directing a conference is not required. A conference can be requested by simply writing to the Court. In any event, Claimant's request for a conference is denied, as the Court determines that it would be neither helpful nor necessary (Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims [22 NYCRR] § 206.10[e]). First, the Court does not know what Claimant is referring to when he requests a "preliminary hearing." This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, where preliminary hearings are often held. Second, Claimant asserts that he wants Defendant to comply with the discovery rules. However, as the Court has advised Claimant on a number of occasions in connection with other motions, he is the one who has failed to comply with CPLR 3120(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that, after commencement of an action, a party may serve upon another party a NOTICE TO PRODUCE designated documents or any other things in the possession or control of the party being served. However, the party seeking discovery, here, Mr. Dolberry, must SERVE A DISCOVERY DEMAND UPON THE OTHER PARTY (IN THIS CASE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT) AND DESIGNATE THE ITEMS HE IS SEEKING. In other words, Claimant first must make his request DIRECTLY to the Attorney General to produce the documents or information he seeks. After he has received the State's response, or the specified time for a response has passed, if Claimant is dissatisfied with the response he receives, only then may he properly make a motion for the Court to compel Defendant to comply or respond to the discovery request. In this case, just as in several prior instances, Claimant has failed to establish he has complied with these requirements.
Therefore, Claimant's Motion for a telephone conference is denied.
October 31, 2017
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion for a telephone conference:
Notice of Motion and Statement in Support
and Exhibit attached 1
Papers Filed: Claim, Answer