New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KAMINSKI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-011-581, Claim No. 103405, Motion No. M-63442


Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 for an order compelling a response to a demand for discovery and inspection is denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

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

Claimant's attorney:
Thomas Kaminski, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Michele M. Walls, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 9, 2001
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a motion by Claimant pursuant to CPLR 3124 for an order compelling a response toa demand for discovery and inspection. The claim is based on allegations that Claimant was injured when he was struck in the arm. Claimant alleges that he was struck by a steel door when it slammed shut as a result of a vacuum created by excessive ventilation of the building.

Claimant served a demand for discovery and inspection dated February 15, 2001. No response was provided until this motion was made more than two months later. In response Defendant provided the material requested in three of the ten items of the demand. A search for material requested in three other items failed to turn up any documents and objections were raised in response to the remaining four items.

Item five of the demand sought blueprints for the dormitory at Franklin Correctional Facility where Claimant is alleged to have been injured. Defendant rejected the demand based on security concerns. In the absence of some substantive showing by Claimant as to why the blueprints are required, the concern for security expressed by Defendant outweighs the need for disclosure.

Item seven requests all memoranda concerning the use of the ventilation/exhaust system in all dorms at Franklin Correction Facility. This demand lacks specificity and is overbroad. Defendant should not be required to determine the meaning of the phrase ‘use of the system'. Furthermore, the demand is for documents from 1986 to the present and is not limited to the dorm in which Claimant was injured.

The demand in item nine is for all claims filed with any court in the state relating to injuries sustained in a manner similar to the incident in which Claimant was injured. This demand is patently overbroad and burdensome.

Item ten is a demand for the names, addresses, telephone numbers of the individual or individuals who built not only the Franklin Correctional Facility Main and Annex buildings but also other similar correctional facility buildings. Claimant also has requested the contract numbers for those projects. This demand is also overbroad and burdensome and Claimant has failed to show how the material is relevant to the claim.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion is denied.

August 9, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery & Inspection dated April 23, 2001
  2. Affidavit in Support of Thomas Kaminski sworn to the 23rd day of April, 2001 with attachment
  3. Affirmation in Opposition of Michele M. Walls dated May 10, 2001 with exhibits attached
  4. Reply Affidavit in Support of Thomas Kaminski sworn to the 11th day of May, 2001 with attachments
  5. Unsworn Reply to Defendant's Affimation (sp) in Opposition of Thomas Kaminski dated May 15, 2001