New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SACCO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-579, Claim No. 109009, Motion No. M-68846


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2004-030-579
Claimant(s):
ANTONIO SACCO
Claimant short name:
SACCO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109009
Motion number(s):
M-68846
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
ANTONIO SACCO, 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:
October 5, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on Claimant's motion to


compel disclosure, brought pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §3124:

1,2 Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery and Inspection, Affidavit in Support of Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Antonio Sacco, Claimant

  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
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 correction officers.

In the present motion, Claimant asks that answers to certain interrogatories[1] 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"[2] and the 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.

October 5, 2004
White Plains, New York

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




[1] The parties are reminded of the Court rule stated at 22 NYCRR §206.5(c) whereby all papers that are required to be served on another party must be filed with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims.
[2] Civil Practice Law and Rules §3133(a).