New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-011-598, Claim No. 103136-A, Motion No. M-63809


Synopsis


Claimant's request for an order compelling defendant to provide responses to interrogatories are granted in part.

Case Information

UID:
2001-011-598
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103136-A
Motion number(s):
M-63809
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 31, 2001
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved for an order compelling defendant to provide responses tointerrogatories.

The interrogatories were received by defendant on June 5, 2001 and a response was served on July 5, 2001. In the response defendant objected to interrogatory number one as irrelevant and interrogatories numbered three and four as overbroad and unduly burdensome. In response to interrogatory number two, defendant requested clarification of the term "exact discretionary criteria determination" as used in the interrogatory.

CPLR 3133(a) requires a party served with interrogatories to serve an answer to each interrogatory, or to provide a statement made with reasonable particularity any objection to the interrogatory, within twenty days after service of the interrogatories. The failure of a party to make a timely motion to strike interrogatories forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except where the objection involves a matter privileged under CPLR 3101 (Gardner v Kawasaki Heavy Indus., 213 AD2d 840). As defendant did not move or object within the required twenty day period and the interrogatories do not seek privileged matter, the motion should be granted. Accordingly, defendant is directed to provide responses to interrogatories number one, three and four within twenty days of service upon it of a file-stamped copy of this order.

October 31, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

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



Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion dated July 18, 2001
  2. Affidavit in Support sworn to the 18th day of July, 2001
  3. Affirmation in Opposition of Kathleen M. Resnick, Esq. dated August 15, 2001 with exhibit annexed