New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HALL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-015-091, Claim No. 101388, Motion No. M-62040


Synopsis


Court directed pro se inmate to serve responses to discovery demands and a verified bill of particulars within 60 days.

Case Information

UID:
2000-015-091
Claimant(s):
HORACE HALL
Claimant short name:
HALL
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101388
Motion number(s):
M-62040
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
Horace Hall, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Joel L. Marmelstein, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 11, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The motion of the defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 compelling the claimant to serve responses to the defendant's discovery demands dated April 7, 2000, within 60 days of the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry is granted. The motion of the defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR 3042 (c) compelling the claimant to serve a bill of particulars in response to the defendant's demand for a verified bill of particulars dated April 7, 2000 within 60 days of the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry is granted. The request contained in the notice of motion for relief pursuant to CPLR 3216 and 3134 is denied. This is a claim by an inmate appearing pro se to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of the medical malpractice, negligence and intentional conduct of a State employee which occurred on September 24, 1999 at the Marcy Correctional Facility when a facility nurse allegedly refused to provide claimant his prescribed injection of the medication Neupogen. On April 7, 2000, the defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars and discovery demands upon claimant to which he has not responded. By this motion, defendant moves to compel responses as well as for relief pursuant to CPLR 3216 and 3134. CPLR 3134 has been repealed and CPLR 3216 provides a remedy for neglect to prosecute, relief which is not appropriate upon this record. CPLR 3124 is the appropriate section to compel disclosure when a party has failed to respond to discovery demands. CPLR 3042 (c) authorizes an order directing a party to serve a bill of particulars when he has failed to respond to a previous demand therefor. Defendant is entitled to relief pursuant to both provisions.


October 11, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated July 12, 2000;
  2. Affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein dated July 12, 2000, with exhibits;
  3. Claim filed on November 9, 1999.