New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TORRES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-018-035, Claim No. 99117, Motion No. M-61567


Synopsis


Defendant's motion to preclude information requested by discovery demands granted with 30-day order.

Case Information

UID:
2000-018-035
Claimant(s):
JAVIER TORRES
Claimant short name:
TORRES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99117
Motion number(s):
M-61567
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Claimant's attorney:
SALVATORE J. RICO, ESQUIRE
Defendant's attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
BY: CARLA T. RUTIGLIANO, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 18, 2000
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision



The Court has considered the following documents in deciding this motion:


Notice of Motion.....................................................................................................1


Affirmation in support of Carla T. Rutigliano, Esquire,

Assistant Attorney General and all exhibits attached thereto.......................2


No response was received from claimant.



The inmate claim arises from an incident in which the claimant sustained an injury to his right index finger while operating a meat slicer in the correctional facility's mess hall. The claim alleges that the State failed to properly train and supervise claimant which resulted in his injury. Defendant, State of New York, brings this motion to preclude and/or compel, pursuant to CPLR §3042, in response to the claimant's failure to comply with the defendant's Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, Expert Disclosure; and Demand for Discovery and Production.

A Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars; an Expert Disclosure Demand; and a Demand for Discovery and Production was served by the defendant on or about February 11, 1999. When no response was received, defendant sent a letter to claimant's counsel on November 10, 1999, seeking a response to all outstanding demands by November 30, 1999. Claimant's counsel then contacted the defendant and requested several extensions which were all granted. Another letter was sent to claimant's counsel on March 3, 2000 confirming that all discovery responses would be provided on or before April 4, 2000. Despite Defendant's accommodations to claimant, no discovery responses were received and no further communication from claimant's counsel was forthcoming. In fact, claimant has not responded to this motion.

Accordingly, defendant's motion to preclude is GRANTED, and claimant will be precluded at trial from offering any evidence or testimony related to the information requested by the Demand for Bill of Particulars, Demand for Discovery and Production or Expert Witness Demand, unless the claimant produces the demanded materials within thirty (30) days of the service upon counsel for claimant of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry.



August 18, 2000
Syracuse, New York

HON. DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims