New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-054-094, Claim No. 122129, Motion No. M-92695

Synopsis

Claimant's motion for an examination before trial (EBT) and to compel discovery denied, claimant has failed to establish that the Court's intervention is warranted and the Court cannot compel defendant to perform any services associated with claimant's litigation.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-094
Claimant(s): KEVIN BROWN
Claimant short name: BROWN
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 122129
Motion number(s): M-92695
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: KEVIN BROWN
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Benjamin L. Maggi, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 26, 2018
City: White Plains
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for an examination before trial (EBT) and to compel discovery:

Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits...........................1

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...............................................2

Claimant's Reply "Affirmation"................................................................................3

Claimant seeks an Order compelling defendant to produce Raymond Niepoth for an EBT and to compel other discovery. Claimant, however, has not shown that he has served defendant with a demand for an EBT of Niepoth; nor has claimant shown that he has served defendant with any discovery demand to which defendant has failed to properly respond. Thus in this regard, claimant has failed to establish that the Court's intervention is warranted. Additionally, to the extent that claimant seeks to compel defendant to "go out and take photos of the north side recreation yard to substantiate the condition of the yard" (Claimant's Reply, 4), it is noted that defendant responded to claimant's demand for any photographs of the area and indicated that defendant was not in possession of any photographs of the area (Defendant's Ex. E) and the Court cannot compel defendant to perform any services associated with claimant's litigation (Civil Rights Law 79 (3), 79-a (3); see Brown v State of New York, 6 AD3d 756 [3d Dept 2004]; Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530 [3d Dept 1991]).

Accordingly, claimant's motion is DENIED.

September 26, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims