Pro se Claimant's Motion for sanctions 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 30, 2017|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
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:
Notice of Motion and Statement in Support
and Exhibit attached 1
Papers Filed: Claim, Answer