New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROBERTSON v.THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-016-080, Claim No. 98290, Motion No. M-61993


Motion for order striking defendant's answer for willfully failing to produce deponent denied.

Case Information

ALIA ROBERTSON, an infant by her mother and natural guardian, KAREN ROBERTSON
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Christopher J. Smith, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ronald Turbin, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 26, 2000
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


In the underlying claim, it is asserted that "the State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn - University Hospital was negligent . . . in the . . . medical care and treatment rendered to the infant claimant . . . and . . . caused severe and significant personal injuries . . . including brain damage by allowing . . . said infant to suffer oxygen deprivation . . ."

This is claimant's[1] motion for an order: (1) striking defendant's answer for willfully failing to produce state employee Geetha Chari, M.D. for deposition; and (2) imposing costs and sanctions for causing needless motion practice and in causing claimant's attorney to incur costs in serving a subpoena on Dr. Chari. Essentially, claimant complains that defendant initially identified Dr. Chari as no longer employed by defendant, which caused claimant to serve a subpoena on Dr. Chari. Subsequently, defendant wrote to state that Dr. Chari was in fact employed by the state, and claimant thus asserts that the subpoena was unnecessary. Defendant's counsel explains that he was initially advised by the hospital that Dr. Chari was not a state employee, but he subsequently learned that she was in fact an employee. Nothing in the papers submitted by the parties suggests that there was any willful mis-communication by defendant's counsel. Claimant also contends that Dr. Chari has still not been deposed because of defendant's delays. However, a review of the submitted papers indicates that both parties bear some responsibility for the delays in scheduling.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-61993 be denied in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall make Dr. Geetha Chari available for deposition on a mutually acceptable date to be scheduled within sixty (60) days of the filing of this order.

September 26, 2000
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]As the claim of Karen Robertson is derivative in nature, this order will refer to claimant Alia Robertson in the singular.
  2. [2]Along with the pleadings, the following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and Exhibits A-H; defendant's affirmation in opposition with Exhibits A-D; the August 15, 2000 letter from Ronald Turbin, AAG to the Court; the August 18, 2000 letter from Christopher J. Smith, Esq. to the Court; and the September 1, 2000 letter from Ronald Turbin, AAG to the Court.