New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PRESSLEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-015-140, Claim No. 102641, Motion No. M-62987


State's motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 (c) to compel service of bill of particulars granted. State's motion to compel responses to omnibus discovery demands brought under non-relevant sections of CPLR denied without prejudice to motion pursuant to CPLR Rule 3124.

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:
Kevin Pressley, Pro SeNo Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: G. Lawrence Dillon, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 23, 2001
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant's motion for an order pursuant to Rule 3042 (c) directing the claimant to serve a bill of particulars in response to the defendant's demand therefore dated July 19, 2000, within thirty days of the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry is granted. The request for relief pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024 and § 3126 is denied without prejudice to the making of a motion pursuant to Rule 3124 to compel a response to the defendant's discovery demands also dated July 19, 2000. This is a claim by an inmate appearing pro se to recover the sum of $60,000 as compensation for an alleged battery of the claimant by DOCS' personnel at the Oneida Correctional Facility draft room on March 31, 2000. The claim was filed on June 22, 2000.

On July 19, 2000 the defendant served a demand for a verified bill of particulars and a separate omnibus demand for names and addresses of witnesses, medical authorizations, employment and/or school records authorization, disclosure of expert witnesses, discovery and inspection of collateral sources and discovery and inspection of photographs. It is alleged on the motion that claimant has not objected to or responded to any of said demands. A motion pursuant to CPLR Rule 3042 which is entitled "[p]rocedure for bill of particulars" relates exclusively to a bill of particulars which offers "a more expansive statement of the pleader's contentions" (Siegel, NY Prac § 238 at 382 [3d ed]). Rule 3042 does not provide a mechanism for the Court to compel responses to any of the defendant's other demands. Such a device exists in CPLR Rule 3124 but defendant has not requested relief pursuant to that rule on the instant motion.

The defendant has also requested relief pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024 which is entitled "[m]otion to correct pleadings." Such relief is not available on this motion since counsel's affirmation in support is not related to any item of relief addressed therein. Likewise relief pursuant to CPLR § 3126 is not available absent proof that claimant has disobeyed an order for disclosure or wilfully failed to disclose information. No such proof was offered here.

Accordingly, relief will be limited to directing the claimant to serve a bill of particulars within 30 days of receipt of this decision and order with notice of its entry.

April 23, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated January 22, 2001;
  2. Affirmation of G. Lawrence Dillon, dated January 22, 2001 with exhibits.