New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SOLIMINE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-002, Claim No. 104088, Motion No. M-64260


Synopsis


Motion to compel further responses to notice to admit was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-002
Claimant(s):
FRANK SOLIMINE
Claimant short name:
SOLIMINE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104088
Motion number(s):
M-64260
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Frank Solimine
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Dewey Lee, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 9, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimant's motion for an order compelling defendant to further respond to his notice to admit pursuant to CPLR §3123. He objects to defendant's responses to the extent they assert that "[t]his is an ultimate question for trial." Solimine describes his underlying claim as arising from his "ongoing battle to obtain orthopedic sneakers which are necessary for his

feet . . ." CPLR §3123 provides that a party may request another party to admit the "truth of any matters of fact . . . as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial . . ." CPLR §3123 "is not a substitute for interrogatories or other disclosure devices that may be used to obtain information on disputable issues . . ." Vol. 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3123.05 at 31-563. Moreover, "requests for admissions are not intended to cover ultimate conclusions which can only be made after a full and complete trial . . ." Nader v General Motors Corporation, 53 Misc2d 515, 516, 279 NYS2d 111, 113 (NY County Sup Ct 1967), affd 29 AD2d 632, 286 NYS2d 209 (1st Dept 1967). In this case, the matters as to which claimant seeks admissions are more appropriately the subject of other disclosure devices such as interrogatories or are matters to be determined at trial.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64260 be denied.


January 9, 2002
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]Along with the pleadings, the following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with "Motion to Compel Answer," "Supporting Affidavit" and Exhibits 1 and 2; and defendant's affirmation in opposition.