New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
DOLBERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-040-134, Claim No. 129253, Motion No. M-90820

Synopsis

Pro se Claimant's Motion for sanctions denied.

Case information

UID: 2017-040-134
Claimant(s): ANDRE DOLBERRY
Claimant short name: DOLBERRY
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 129253
Motion number(s): M-90820
Cross-motion number(s):
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 30, 2017
City: Albany
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion of pro se Claimant, Andre Dolberry, for sanctions 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.

By this Motion, Claimant seeks sanctions against the Defendant for failing to provide Claimant with discovery. By a previous Motion, Claimant sought an order directing Defendant to produce documents for discovery and inspection. Defendant opposed the motion on the ground that Claimant has not served a discovery demand upon the State relating to this Claim. This Court, in its Decision and Order, stated that CPLR 3120(1) 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 has to serve a discovery demand upon the other party and designate the items it is seeking. The Court found that Claimant failed to establish he has complied with these requirements (Dolberry v State of New York, UID No. 2017-040-055 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., May 19, 2017]).

Claimant still has not presented any proof that he served a discovery demand upon Defendant and designated the items he is seeking as required by CPLR 3120(1). Therefore, his Motion seeking sanctions is denied.

October 30, 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 sanctions:

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion and Statement in Support

and Exhibit attached 1

Papers Filed: Claim, Answer