New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MITCHELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-005-542, Claim No. 105286, Motion Nos. M-65346, CM-65447


Claimant's motion for an order compelling disclosure is denied and Defendant's cross-motion to compel or preclude disclosure demands and other related relief is granted 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:
Raymond Mitchell,Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 21, 2002

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


On July 17, 2002, the following papers, numbered 1 to 7, were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure and on cross-motion by Defendant to compel or preclude disclosure demands and other related relief:

Papers Numbered

1, 2 Notice of Motion and Affidavit

3, 4 Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed

5, 6 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Upon the foregoing papers, the motion is denied and the cross-motion is granted to the extent noted.

In his motion Claimant seeks an order compelling certain disclosures by the Defendant, primarily the names and addresses of witnesses and expert witness disclosure, as demanded on or about January 16, 2002. In his moving papers Claimant avers that he made good faith efforts on February 28, 2002 and April 11, 20002. However no copies of such purported good faith efforts were appended to the moving papers nor were they located in the court's file.

Nonetheless, in opposition to the motion, the Defendant has filed a cross-motion seeking to compel Claimant to answer certain discovery demands, or preclude him from offering evidence in support of said demands and other related relief. In its motion papers, the Defendant recites certain procedural histories of this claim, and appends relevant documents. The claim herein was filed on December 3, 2001, alleging injuries in a slip and fall on or about January 21, 2001, at Five Points Correctional Facility. On January 4, 2002, the Defendant filed its Answer and served numerous demands upon the Claimant (Exhibit A to the Cross-Motion). On January 24, 2002 Claimant served certain of his demands (Exhibit B) and certain other demands on April 18, 2002 (Exhibit C).

On February 6, 2002, Claimant served responses to the Defendant's Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, etc. (Exhibit D), and on February 21, 2002, served his Supplemental Answers and Objections to the Defendant's Bill of Particulars (Exhibit E). It is the responses to the Defendant's demand for a Bill of Particulars, and the Claimant's responses to the other demands that form the basis of the cross-motion herein. A review of Claimant's responses to the demand for a Bill of Particulars may be summarized as follows: he objects to each demand for a Bill of Particulars, but for purposes of cooperation (sic) provides that the information has already been disclosed. He did provide his date of birth (Paragraph 1); the time (but not the date) of the occurrence (paragraph 2); weekly wages prior to his incarceration (paragraph 11[h]); the addresses of his employers (paragraph 11[a], as contained in his supplemental response), and certain responses to the statutes, ordinances, rules, etc., which were allegedly violated by Defendant (paragraph 29), albeit without setting forth the manner in which the said statutes, etc., were violated. Otherwise, with respect to Defendant's demands for statements, photographs, videotapes and Names and Addresses of witnesses, Claimant avers that all information has already been disclosed. He states that he does not have an expert witness at this time.

Claimant's only opposition to the cross-motion recites 22 NYCRR 206.8(b) and the requirement for a separate affidavit or affirmation showing a good faith effort to resolve the issues. However, the cross-motion is in response to Claimant's initiative, to wit, his motion to compel, and as with all such cross-motions, no good faith supportive papers are necessary. Claimant neglects to address the substance of the cross-motion.

Claimant's responses are disingenuous and nonresponsive. Defendant is entitled to meaningful responses to its demands. Therefore, the Defendant's cross-motion is granted to the extent that Claimant is hereby compelled to provide proper responses to each and every demand for a bill of particular, except as to his date of birth already answered in his response to Paragraph 1; further excepting his response to Paragraphs 11(a) and (h), and that part of Paragraph 29 which recites the statutes, ordinances, rules, etc., which were allegedly violated by Defendant. Claimant is also compelled to provide proper responses to all other demands served upon him by the Defendant (Exhibit A to the Cross-Motion), except as to the demand for expert witnesses for which he has a continuing duty to advise the Defendant should he retain an expert witness in the future. Claimant shall have 30 days from service upon him of a file-stamped copy of this order to serve and file his responses, or he will be precluded from offering at trial any evidence in support of any matters which were the subject of the said demands. The Claimant's motion is denied in all respects.

October 21, 2002
Rochester, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims