A discovery and inspection notice will be enforced if it is sufficiently specific so as to enable the responding party to identify the information sought and conduct a search therefrom.

The motion of claimant for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 directing the defendant to comply with his notice for discovery and inspection annexed as Exhibit A to the affidavit submitted in support of the motion within thirty days of the date of this decision and order by either serving copies of said documents upon claimant or a sworn statement that after a diligent search such documents could not be located is granted. This is a claim by an inmate appearing pro se to recover for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and medical malpractice of employees of the Department of Correctional Services. The first cause of action in the amended claim asserts that claimant was transported on September 15, 1997 from Riverview Correctional Facility to Coxsackie Correctional Facility in order to attend a court ordered appearance in Albany County Court. It is alleged that claimant was then taken by correction officers to the Albany County Correctional Facility and, on September 16, 1997, was transported to the Albany County Courthouse where he was given an adjourned date to appear in the Albany County Court. Claimant asserts that instead of then returning claimant to Coxsackie Correctional Facility, DOCS employees permitted him to be housed at the Albany County Correctional Facility in disregard of orders to the contrary. The second cause of action asserts that on October 4, 1997, at approximately 11:30 a.m., claimant slipped and fell upon stairs located in the Albany County Correctional Facility. The third cause of action alleges that on August 17, 1998 claimant was negligently prescribed medication at Riverview Correctional Facility. Claimant served a discovery and inspection notice upon the defendant containing the following requests:

Defense counsel served a response dated November 10, 1999 stating that all of the requests were overly broad, vague and burdensome and requested information that was not relevant to the issues in dispute. Claimant's motion ensued. In opposing the motion, defense counsel now concedes that the requested documents "have an indicia of relevance", but still maintains that the requests are overly broad, vague and burdensome.

In the Court's view, claimant's requests are sufficiently specific so as to enable the defendant to reasonably identify what information is sought and to conduct a search therefore (see generally Brathwaite v State of New York, 208 AD2d 231, at 236 and 237).

The Court considered the following papers: