New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CITY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-099, Claim No. 99160, Motion No. M-65855


Synopsis


Motion regarding discovery and the use of prior trial testimony was granted in part and denied in part.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-099
Claimant(s):
THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP.
Claimant short name:
CITY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99160
Motion number(s):
M-65855
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New YorkBy: Alan H. Kleinman, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Arthur Patane, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 16, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

This is claimants' motion for: (1) an order limiting defendant's demand for a bill of particulars pursuant to CPLR 3042(e); (2) a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 barring disclosure regarding the number of referrals made in 1991; and (3) a ruling that the trial testimony in City v Maul be admissible at the trial of this claim pursuant to CPLR 4517. Having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], and having heard oral argument on October 16, 2002, for the reasons set forth at such oral argument, IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65855 be granted in part and denied in part to the extent that:
  1. With regard to the prior trial testimony in City v Maul:
a) abthe prior trial testimony of Bracha Graber will be admissible at the trial of this claim;
b) abthe prior trial testimony of Judy Shernikoff and Deritt Elverson will not be admissible at the trial of this claim;
c) abthe prior trial testimony of Kenneth Feifer will not be admissible at the trial of this claim unless the City can make a showing pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3)(iv) that it has been unable to procure his attendance by diligent efforts;
  1. Within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, claimant shall produce to defendant all documents listed in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Demand for Discovery and Inspection annexed to claimant's moving papers as exhibit B, however other documents "used, created, incorporated in or referred to in their preparation" need not be produced, nor shall defendant be required to produce the documents listed in paragraph 3 of the Demand for Discovery and Inspection; and
  2. Claimant need not respond to the Demand for Verified Bill of Particulars annexed to claimant's moving papers as exhibit C.

October 16, 2002
New York, New York

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




[1]The following were reviewed: claimants' notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-C with memorandum of law in support; defendant's affidavit in opposition; and claimants' reply affirmation.