New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VALLE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-005-533, Claim No. 101829, Motion No. M-64868


Claimant's motion for the attendance of witnesses and production of documents at the trial herein is denied except to the extent noted.

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:
Jaime Valle,Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 22, 2002

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


On April 17, 2002, the following papers, numbered 1 to 7, were read on motion by Claimant for the attendance of witnesses and production of documents at the trial herein on May 1, 2002:
1, 2 Notice of Motion and Affidavit Annexed
  1. Opposing Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed
4, 5, 6, 7 Filed Papers: Claim; Answer; Decision and Order, and Supplemental Order in Motion No. M-64605

Upon the foregoing papers this motion is denied except to the extent noted.

In this motion dated March 8, 2002, and filed on March 18, 2002, Claimant requests an adjournment of my earlier deadline to file a request for witnesses and documents at his trial herein, originally scheduled for May 1, 2002. While Claimant's motion is technically late, and he does not present any evidence that he was stabbed and injured, I will allow that he has made a good faith effort to comply with my directive, and since the trial has been adjourned to June 18, 2002, I will accept his motion papers and rule upon his requests.

With respect to his request for "DSS" Edward Dann, I am advised that Mr. Dann is deceased. As to "DSP" Ronald F. Nelson, who Claimant alleges "may" provide information concerning intentional harassment of Claimant, etc., the request is denied as it is speculative in nature.

The testimony of Captain Gummerson, who conducted the IPC Hearing of February 3, 1999, is sought because he "may" provide information of intentional harassment. This request is denied as being speculative. The request for Sergeant LeOuteourneau, who "may" provide information relative to intentional harassment in the Law Library, is similarly denied.

The testimony of Sergeant Murphy is sought because he "may" provide information as to who ordered confiscation of Claimant's legal papers, and is denied as speculative and because the identity of the individual is a non-issue.

Since Claimant has already been precluded from offering any expert testimony (see Order and Supplemental Order in Motion No. M-64605) and Claimant has advised the Court that he will not have any expert witnesses, thus C.O. G. Small who "may" provide information relative to treatment with steristrips, etc., will not be directed to testify, inasmuch as the prospective testimony is speculative and the medical records can reflect the actual treatment Claimant received.

The request for the testimony of Correction Officers (C.O.) Manser, A. Volpe and J. Fasce is denied as speculative. The question of a denial of an extra mattress, confiscation of certain of Claimant's legal materials and medically issued boots, as such relates to intentional harassment and is denied as such allegations sound in the intentional infliction of emotional distress, a cause of action not viable against the State of New York (De Lesline v State of New York, 91 AD2d 785, lv denied, 58 NY2d 610; Wheeler v State of New York, 104 AD2d 496). C.O. B. Chuttey is sought because he "may" provide information concerning the confiscation and possible destruction of said boots. This request is denied as speculative.

Claimant seeks "SCC" Robert Butera who "may" provide information of an investigation of a communication sent by other inmates to the administration. This is speculative and Claimant fails to demonstrate any probative value of such putative testimony. The testimony of C.O. Robert Mitchell is similarly denied as speculative and addressing intentional harassment (see De Lesline v State of New York, supra, and Wheeler v State of New York, supra).

Claimant seeks the testimony of "FHSD" Anthony Graceffo and "N.A." Chris Coyne who "may" provide information concerning the propriety of treatment of a wound, etc. This testimony is denied as speculative and, since it addresses the "propriety" of medical treatment , it would seek opinion testimony. Since Claimant is precluded from offering expert or opinion testimony, I decline to direct Dr. Graceffo or Nurse Coyne to testify. The actual treatment received may be demonstrated from medical records. For the same reasons of speculativeness and the seeking of opinion testimony, I decline to direct P.A. R. Laux; R.N. Finch; R.N. George Ray, or R.N. Annie to testify on Claimant's behalf.

As to the documents listed in Paragraph 11 of Claimant's motion, the "records" sought are too vague, the requests too broad, or address intentional harassment, a non-viable cause of action discussed above, and are denied.

However, I do direct the Defendant to provide at trial any photographs taken of Claimant's wound at the Auburn hospital on January 30, 1999.

I also direct the Defendant to have a copy of Claimant's ambulatory health records available at the trial herein.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion is denied in all respects, except as to his medical records and all photographs of his wound, if any, taken on January 30, 1999.

April 22, 2002
Rochester, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims