New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VENTICINQUE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-054, Claim No. 106698, Motion No. M-66629


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-054
Claimant(s):
RONALD VENTICINQUE
Claimant short name:
VENTICINQUE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106698
Motion number(s):
M-66629
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
RONALD VENTICINQUE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 28, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Claimant for an order compelling disclosure from Defendant, pursuant to CPLR 3124:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed April 3, 2003;
2. Claimant's unsworn Affidavit, dated March 24, 2003;
  1. Defendant's Response to Claimant's Renewed Discovery Demands, with attached exhibits;
4. Claimant's unsworn, undated Reply Affidavit, filed April 21, 2003. In this action, Claimant alleges, among other things, that over his objections, he was given a tuberculosis screening test on August 5, 2002. He alleges that, despite his notice to Defendant that he had adverse reactions to such tests, the test was given and he did indeed suffer severe adverse reactions. These allegedly included: cramps, nausea, disturbances in his vision, chest pain, headaches, and sleeplessness.

Claimant's first discovery demand was filed on December 16, 2002. As far as I can tell from the record before me, Defendant had not responded to these demands when, on January 13, 2003, Claimant filed another substantially identical demand entitled "Renewed Discovery Demands." Claimant does not indicate when these demands were served upon the Attorney General. However, Claimant filed this motion on April 3, 2003, and seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to these requests.

In response to this motion, Defendant filed and served its response to Claimant's renewed discovery demands and has indicated in its transmittal letter its position is that, in light of its response, the motion is no longer necessary. Claimant, however, has indicated in his unsworn reply affidavit that Defendant's response is inadequate. Claimant requests that I compel a proper response to his demands.

I find that Defendant's submission adequately responds to those portions of Claimant's demand that are proper and relevant to his cause of action.

Based upon the foregoing, it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is, in all respects, denied.

July 28, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims