New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FERRARI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-011-562, Claim No. 103056-A, Motion No. M-63200


Synopsis


Claimant motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 for an order compelling a response to a demand for notice to produce is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-011-562
Claimant(s):
RAYMOND FERRARI, 95 R 6002
Claimant short name:
FERRARI
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103056-A
Motion number(s):
M-63200
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Raymond Ferrari, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Michael C. Rizzo, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 18, 2001
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


This is a motion by Claimant pursuant to CPLR 3124 for an order compelling a response to ademand for notice to produce.

The claim stems from an incident in which Claimant was injured on an outdoor basketball court at Franklin Correctional Facility. CPLR 3101 (a) requires "... full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof". "The words, 'material and necessary', are ... to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). Demands for discovery of documents and things "shall set forth the items to be inspected, copied, tested or photographed by individual item or by category, and shall describe each item and category with reasonable particularity." (CPLR 3120[a][2]).

A response to the demand was provided to Claimant and in the response Defendant objected to the demands in items 6 through 10, 12 and 13 as over broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. The items objected to do not describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity and are therefore, stricken. Claimant should narrow the scope of the demands if necessary by first conducting a deposition of an individual with knowledge of the records maintained by defendant.

The motion is denied.


July 18, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion dated March 8, 2001
  2. Affidavit in Support sworn to the 8th day of March, 2001 with exhibits annexed
  3. Affidavit in Opposition of Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. sworn to the 21st day of March, 2001