New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ATKINS v. New York, #2000-010-016, Claim No. 99102, Motion Nos. M-61405, CM-61506


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel discovery; defendant's cross-motion to strike those discovery requests which are palpably improper.

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-016
Claimant(s):
RONALD ATKINS
Claimant short name:
ATKINS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99102
Motion number(s):
M-61405
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-61506
Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
RONALD ATKINSPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 19, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to compel discovery and defendant's motion to strike those discovery requests which are palpably improper:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits...........................1

Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.............2

Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Claim No. 99102 alleges that defendant negligently and carelessly permitted claimant to be transferred from Sing Sing Correction Facility to another State facility while claimant was recovering from surgery to his left foot. The claim further alleges that defendant's actions were in violation of its own Medical Hold protocol (Claim, ¶ 9).

Claimant's discovery demands dated November 5, 1999, December 14, 1999 and February 2, 2000 all request "all papers and relevant discovery material that pertain to the documents, records, correspondences and other material maintain [sic] in your files on this action" (Claimant's Exs.). Defendant's response to the demands dated June 8, 1999, indicates that, to the extent that the demands are not overbroad and burdensome, it will provide claimant with all documents which would not be privileged either because they pose a security risk or are attorney work product (Defendant's Ex. B).

Defendant submits the relevant information regarding the Medical Hold policy (Defendant's Ex. E) and the Court finds that defendant's response sufficiently answers that portion of the discovery demands which seeks such information (Defendant's Ex. B). Claimant's remaining discovery demands are overbroad and therefore palpably improper (CPLR 3120; see, Haroian v Nusbaum, 84 AD2d 532, 533 ["attempts to designate documents by use of the alternate phrases, ‘All,' ‘All other' or ‘Any and all,' renders a request or notice for production under CPLR 3120 ‘palpably improper'" citing City of New York v Friedberg & Assoc., 62 AD2d 407, 410]). Accordingly, claimant's motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

Defendant's cross-motion to strike claimant's discovery demands, which do not refer to the Medical Hold information, as palpably improper is GRANTED.


April 19, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims