4,5 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer
After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the
motion is disposed of as follows:
Antonio Sacco, the Claimant herein, alleges in Claim number 109009 that
defendant's agents negligently lost his property while he was incarcerated at
Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereafter Sing Sing). Claimant alleges that
after an altercation with 2 other inmates on May 14, 2003 he was moved to the
Sing Sing infirmary, and his personal property was taken into custody by
In the present motion, Claimant asks that answers to certain
posed to Defendant be
provided, and that Defendant provide documents requested. He indicates that
Defendant has not responded to all of the interrogatories, nor has Defendant
provided all the documents he requested. Specifically, he indicates that
Defendant did not answer interrogatories numbered 6-a, 6-b, and did not provide
copies of documents requested in interrogatories 9 and 10.
In the Affirmation in Opposition to the present motion, the Assistant Attorney
General has responded with the names of the correction officers requested in 6-a
and 6-b; continues to object to interrogatory 9 wherein Claimant requests
"copies of any and all documents generated as a result of the altercation on May
14, 2003 at the Sing-Sing Correctional Facility between claimant and R. Yulfo, .
. . and G. Diaz . . . ;" [See Affirmation in Opposition, Exhibit A] and,
although objecting to the request in interrogatory 10 for copies of "any and all
documents generated as a result of the investigation that took place at the Sing
Sing Correctional Facility regarding Woodbourne Correctional Facility Claim No.
140-0027-03," [See id] nonetheless provides copies of said documents as
Exhibits F and G to her Affirmation, and had provided same in the Response to
Claimant's Interrogatories forwarded to him on June 22, 2004.
Pursuant to general disclosure principles, a party is entitled to "full
disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of
an action, regardless of the burden of proof . . . " Civil Practice Law and
Rules §3101(a). Interrogatories are one disclosure device available to a
litigant, and are frequently used in lieu of depositions when an incarcerated
individual is a party. See generally
Civil Practice Law and Rules
§§3130, 3131. The statute requires that after service of the
Interrogatories, the party served is required to answer within twenty (20) days.
Civil Practice Law and Rules §3133. Any objections to questions are to be
made with "reasonable particularity"
responding party is not required to respond to
". . . interrogatories . . . [that] are unduly broad and oppressive . . . demand
extensive amounts of irrelevant information, [and] call for opinions and
interpretations . . . " Vancek v International Dynetics Corporation, 78
AD2d 842 (1st Dept 1980); see also Kamerman v Kolt, 187 AD2d 564
(2d Dept 1992). The responding party is also not required to anticipate what
information the interrogatories are seeking, but rather may respond only to the
actual question posed. See Meraner v Albany Medical Center, 211
AD2d 867,868 (3d Dept 1995), lv dismissed, 85 NY2d 968 (1995).
With respect to interrogatory 9, the Court agrees that these are irrelevant to
the bailment claim presented herein by Claimant. Accordingly, Defendant's
objection to same is sustained and Defendant need not produce the documents
requested. With respect to the balance of the application, given Defendant's
responses and production of documents, Claimant's motion is moot.
Claimant's motion number M-68846 is in all respects denied.