New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-012-510, Claim No. 98848 and 100076, Motion No. M-60991


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
98848 and 100076
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

John P. Lane
Claimant's attorney:
Joe Jackson, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Gregory P. Miller Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 28, 2000

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read and considered on claimant's application for default judgment:

Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit 1

Opposing affidavit of Gregory P. Miller
sworn to February 24, 2000 2

Claimant's Letter of February 29, 2000 3

Claimant's Letter of April 7, 2000 4

In Claim No. 98848, which was filed on August 24, 1998, claimant alleges that he was the victim of negligence and medical malpractice at various State correctional facilities from 1995 to the date of filing in that he was cared for by medical providers who negligently and carelessly denied him proper medical treatment, or provided him with incorrect medications, thereby aggravating a hair skin disease he contracted as a result of using dirty pillows and laundry issued to him. Claim No. 100076, which was filed on March 30, 1999, appears to extend claimant's cause of action into this year and describes a continuation of a pattern of misdiagnosis and incorrect medication that has caused him daily discomfort, loss of sleep, itching, emotional distress, depression and low self esteem.

In late May, 1999, claimant made a demand in both actions asking for production of his medical records from February 1, 1995 to date, along with other documents. He subsequently moved to compel production of these documents, which he sought to obtain at no charge, and this Court granted the motion to the extent that defendant was directed to produce the described medical records at Wende Correctional Facility, or such other facility where claimant might be housed, on or before October 31, 1999; to permit claimant to review the entire medical record after February 1, 1995 and select those pages that he wished to have copied; and to provide copies of such pages upon payment, by claimant, of the reasonable cost of copying (Order, Motions No. M-60051 and M-60052, filed October 1, 1999).

Claimant now moves for "default judgment" in both claims on the ground that, although the State has interposed an answer in each of the claims, it "has not responded to plaintiffs [sic] Bill of Particulars, Discovery Request, nor have they complied or conformed to the "specific orders" of Judges McNamara and J.P. Lane, to produce claimants entire medical/dental records evidence, or moved with respect to the complaint herein" (notice of motion, ¶ 6). Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that the Attorney General was not served with the Notice of Motion. Defense counsel further submits to the Court that he first learned of the instant motion when informed by the Court that it was pending; that he has attempted to provide the medical records which claimant has requested; and that, after searching the Attorney General's claim file and consulting with the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims, he determined that claimant has neither filed nor served a demand for a bill of particulars (affidavit of G.Miller, ¶¶ 4, 5, 6).

The Court has reviewed all of the submissions set forth above, which include claimant's letters dated February 29, 2000 (with attachments) and April 7, 2000 (with multiple attachments). The earlier letter contains as an attachment a document entitled "Claimant's Request for Production of Documents," but in none of claimant's submissions is there a demand for a bill of particulars.[1] In one of the attachments to the April 7, 2000 letter, which is in itself a letter addressed to this Court dated February 21, 2000, claimant asserts that the Attorney General did not fully comply with the October 1, 1999 order in that claimant's dental records were not produced. From this and from the lack of any statement to the contrary in claimant's many submissions, the Court concludes that the medical records were produced in the manner directed.

Accepting the statement of defense counsel that his office was never served with the instant motion, the Court declines to entertain this motion. For claimant's benefit, however, it should be added that if the motion were to be heard, it would be denied. There is no indication that defendant has failed to comply with this Court's prior order, which directed production of medical records only. Claimant had not, at that time, sought to examine his dental records and his own, quite recent statements, indicate that the absence of those records is his only continuing complaint in that regard.. The State is prepared to comply with claimant's demand for other documents (see footnote 1), and a careful review of the Court's own records as well as the several submissions on this motion has revealed no proof or any reason to believe that claimant has ever served, or filed, a demand for a bill of particulars.

Claimant's motion is dismissed


April 28, 2000
Buffalo, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1] With respect to this demands, the Court's files contain several letters in which the Assistant Attorney General then handling the case offered to produce the documents identified as satisfying that demand upon payment of the photocopying fee of 25 cents per page. The letter dated July 26, 1999, indicates that the fees requested total $65.90.