New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BURKE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-031-033, Claim No. 99464, Motion No. M-64891


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure granted in part.

Case Information

UID:
2002-031-033
Claimant(s):
PATRICK T. BURKE
Claimant short name:
BURKE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99464
Motion number(s):
M-64891
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
PATRICK T. BURKE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 8, 2002
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed March 20, 2002;
2. Claimant's affidavit, sworn to March 8, 2002, with attached exhibits;
3. Statement of William D. Lonergan, Esq., filed March 28, 2002.

This is Claimant's motion to compel further or more complete answers to his interrogatories. In his underlying claim, Mr. Burke alleges medical malpractice, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and the loss of certain personal property. Claimant's demands were dated July 16, 2001, and Defendant answered those interrogatories in a response dated January 25, 2002. Claimant maintains that answers to 24 of the 42 interrogatories are inadequate. I have reviewed the interrogatories and find that Defendant's responses to items numbered 28, 33, 36 and 37 are inadequate and require an additional response. Specifically, in item 28, Claimant requests the identity of any physical therapist to whom he has been referred. Defendant's answer, that Claimant never requested physical therapy, is not responsive to this question. In item 33, Claimant requests, in so many words, the criteria used by Defendant for determining when an inmate is to be issued insulated boots. Defendant's objection to that question as vague is without merit. Finally, in items 36 and 37, Claimant asks for information concerning procedures at and his status within Gowanda in general. Defendant's answers, to the extent that they are limited to only the medical unit at Gowanda, are unresponsive.

Defendant's responses to items numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 were proper and no further response is required.

Based upon the foregoing and it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is granted in part and Defendant is directed to provide further responses to items 28, 33, 36 and 37 of Claimant's request for interrogatories dated July 16, 2001, within 30 days of the filing date of this order; and it is further

ORDERED, that all further relief requested by Claimant in his motion to compel disclosure is denied.

August 8, 2002
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims