REYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-552, Claim No. 107609 by 4IZ6a2


									REYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-552, Claim No. 107609, Motion No.


Claimant’s application is denied without prejudice.

                                       Case Information

UID:                                 2004-028-552

Claimant(s):                         RODERICK REYES

Claimant short name:                 REYES

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):                        THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):                     107609

Motion number(s):                    M-68722

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:                               RICHARD E. SISE

Claimant’s attorney:                 RODERICK REYES

Defendant’s attorney:                HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
                                     BY:     Glenn C. King
                                     Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:                      August 26, 2004

City:                                Albany


Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

The following papers were read on Claimant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) for an Order
to obtain material prepared for litigation or trial:

       1) Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Roderick Reyes filed June 25, 2004
             (Reyes Affidavit); and

       2) Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Glenn C. King, with Exhibit
               A, filed July 29, 2004;

FILED PAPERS: Claim and Verified Answer

        The CPLR directs that there shall be "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary
in the prosecution or defense of an action." (CPLR 3101 [a]) The CPLR also creates three
categories of protected materials: privileged matter, (CPLR 3101 [b]); attorney's work product
(CPLR 3101 [c]); and trial preparation materials, which are subject to disclosure only on a
showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent of the
materials by other means (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]) (Spectrum Systems Int'l Corp. v Chemical Bank,
78 NY2d 371). Claimant has denominated his application as one for material falling into the
third category of protected material and Defendant opposes the application.
        Here, Claimant has put the cart before the horse by making the instant motion, as his list
of materials sought is nothing more than a laundry list of discovery items. As pointed out by
Defendant, Claimant has failed to avail himself of the procedures (see CPLR 3102) customarily
used to obtain disclosure1, including most notably a demand (see Sullivan v Smith, 198 AD2d
749) .
        Given the broad discretion afforded to the Court in supervising discovery (NBT Bancorp
v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 192 AD2d 1032), the Court will not condone resort to motion
practice as the first disclosure device nor will it engage in a parsing of Claimant’s demands to
determine whether Claimant has requested any material falling within the ambit of material
prepared for litigation. Claimant is well advised to become accustomed with the proper
procedures for conducting litigation as set forth in the CPLR.
        Accordingly, Claimant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

                                                                                   August 26, 2004
                                                                                  Albany, New York

                                                                           HON. RICHARD E. SISE
                                                                        Judge of the Court of Claims

      To Defendant’s credit, and in the spirit of the CPLR, it has attempted to comply with many
of Claimant’s requests as if they were made by proper demand (see King Affirmation ¶ 4).

To top