New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GONZALEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-028-549, Claim No. 102021, Motion No. M-66684


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-028-549
Claimant(s):
JUSTO GONZALEZ
Claimant short name:
GONZALEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102021
Motion number(s):
M-66684
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
JUSTO GONZALEZ, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 12, 2003
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on the Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR § 3124 to compel disclosure:

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Belinda A. Wagner (Wagner Affirmation) filed May 2, 2003.

Claimant, at all times relevant an inmate, seeks damages for the alleged failure of the Defendant to provide proper medical care and treatment to him while incarcerated.

The instant motion seeks to compel the production of "any official and true document setting forth the reason(s) for Dr. Holloway's sudden departure on April 7, 2000 from Bare Hill Correctional Facility" (Gonzalez Affidavit Exhibit A, ¶ 1). Defendant opposed the request when made and opposes the instant application asserting the material is irrelevant to the pending claim.

While this Court embraces the principle of full disclosure (see CPLR 3101[a]) the requested documents are irrelevant to the resolution of the negligence/medical malpractice cause of action and do not, on the facts of this claim, constitute information material and necessary to the prosecution of the claim. Moreover, the Court does not see how such material would lead to other discoverable and material evidence. Therefore, Claimant is not entitled to production of the documents demanded.

Based upon the foregoing, Claimant's motion to compel is DENIED.



June 12, 2003
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims





[1] The Court has designated the annexed Exhibits, Claimant's Request for Production of Documents and Defendant's Response as Exhibits A and B, respectively.