New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DUNLOP v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-529, Claim No. 106717, Motion Nos. M-66362, CM-66418


Synopsis


Inmate claimant's motion to compel disclosure denied. Defendant's motion for protective order granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-030-529
Claimant(s):
RAYMOND DUNLOP
Claimant short name:
DUNLOP
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106717
Motion number(s):
M-66362
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-66418
Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
RAYMOND DUNLOP, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: ELYSE J. ANGELICO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 3, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 7, were read on Claimant's motion to compel


disclosure and upon Defendant's cross-motion for a protective order:

1,2 Notice of Motion, Letter in Support by Raymond Dunlop, Claimant, dated January 27, 2003

3,4 Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Support by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General, and accompanying exhibits

5,6,7 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer, Claimant's Bill of Particulars (sic) dated November 6, 2002[1]

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motions are disposed of as follows:

Claimant alleges in Claim Number 106717 that Defendant's agents negligently lost his property upon his transfer from Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereafter Sing Sing) to Southport Correctional Facility (hereafter Southport) on or about June 4, 2002. The property at issue is described as a "back brace ..., seven magazines, personal food package, 75 personal photos, [and] two black history books" [Claim No. 106717, ¶7], and is valued at $110.00. [Ibid, ¶8]. Claimant pursued a facility claim, which appears to have been finally determined on September 20,2002.

On or about November 6, 2002, Claimant served a "Bill of Particulars" upon Defendant that includes what are essentially document discovery requests under a section called "Property Claim #106717," numbered 1 through 10. [cf., Civil Practice Law and Rules §3042, and §§3101, 3120]. Defendant's response objected to the Demand for a Bill of Particulars in that it failed to state "...the items concerning which particulars are desired" [See, Civil Practice Law and Rules §3042(a)] as required, but Defendant nonetheless included most of the documents requested except where the requests were overbroad. [Affirmation of Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit "C"]. These documents include copies of Claimant's inmate grievance complaint filed on June 18, 2002, his institutional claim filed on July 10, 2002, and copies of all documents on file at Southport relating to the subject incident. Additionally, the requested information as to who investigated institutional claim number 630-112/02 is also provided.

In his Letter in Support of the present motion, Claimant recites, generally, the availability of the discovery devices provided for in Civil Practice Law and Rules §3120, and does not really indicate exactly how any responses were less than complete.

In Defendant's cross-motion, the Assistant Attorney General asks for a protective order striking those requests in Claimant's demand that are overbroad and unduly burdensome. This would include striking the requests asking for "any and all documents" related to the claim.

From what this Court can articulate from the Claimant's requests, it appears they have been responded to in full, thus there is no reason to seek an order compelling such responses. Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3042(c), 3124. Requests numbered 1 though 4 are the only requests that are clear enough to respond to. Thus, Claimant's motion is denied.

Defendant's cross-motion for a protective order is granted, with respect to requests numbered 8(A)-(E) through 10, since they are not clear requests for specific information or amplification of a pleading. Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3041, 3103. Given the Defendant's production of documents, and the lack of clarity in the balance of Claimant's requests, the Defendant should not be obligated to produce additional information with respect to this claim except upon a proper demand.

Accordingly, Claimant's Motion No. M-66362 is in all respects DENIED, and Defendant's Cross-Motion No. CM-66418 is GRANTED.

April 3, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] This is actually Claimant's discovery demand at issue, not his own Bill of Particulars.