New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
KEITT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-038-532, Claim No. 126250, Motion No. M-91525


Motion to compel denied as premature. Discovery demand was served with motion, and claimant did not demonstrate that defendant had failed to comply with discovery request.

Case information

UID: 2018-038-532
Claimant(s): DEVIN KEITT
Claimant short name: KEITT
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 126250
Motion number(s): M-91525
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: DEVIN KEITT, Pro se
Defendant's attorney: ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General
of the State of New York
By: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: April 6, 2018
City: Saratoga Springs
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim seeking compensation for alleged wrongful confinement in keeplock prior to and following a disciplinary hearing. Claimant moves for an order compelling defendant to produce a complete copy of the transcript of the disciplinary proceeding that was conducted between August 12 and September 3, 2013. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that it was not served with a discovery demand seeking the transcript prior to the filing of the motion (see Rubinstein Affirmation, 6). Defendant demonstrates that it was served with a notice for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 and an "affidavit in support of motion for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120" on the same day (see id., Exhibit B), and that it had not previously been served with a discovery demand for this claim (see id., Exhibit C). Thus, the motion will be denied as premature because claimant has not demonstrated that defendant has failed to respond to a discovery demand that was served upon it, which is a predicate to a motion to compel (see CPLR 3124; Rodriguez v State of New York, UID No. 2013-038-562 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Oct. 7, 2013]). The wisdom behind CPLR 3124 is elucidated by this motion which is opposed, in part, upon defendant's representation that it has no opposition to providing claimant with the relevant and requested materials in written or audio form, provided that claimant pays copying costs. Thus, not only is this motion premature, it is unnecessary.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M-91525 is DENIED.Papers considered:

April 6, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers considered:

(1) Verified Claim number 126250, filed June 4, 2015;

(2) Verified Answer, filed July 8, 2015;

(3) Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated December 6, 2017;

(4) Affidavit in Support of Motion for Discovery and Inspection Pursuant to CPLR  3120,

sworn to December 6, 2017;

(5) Affirmation of Heather R. Rubinstein, AAG, dated December 29, 2017, with Exhibits A-C.