New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FEENEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-033-142, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-70142


Case Information

GRACE FEENEY, an infant by her Mother and Natural Guardian, TRACY FEENEY, and TRACY FEENEY, Individually
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Sullivan, Papain, Block, McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.By: Mary Anne Walling, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Ross N. Herman, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 13, 2005

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a motion of Grace Feeney, an infant, by her mother and natural guardian, Tracy Feeney, and Tracy Feeney, individually (hereinafter “movants”) for pre-action discovery pursuant to CPLR 3102[1]. The underlying allegation is that the physicians in question failed to properly insert and monitor a PICC[2] line inserted into the infant. The alleged act of medical malpractice occurred during the period of June 25, 2003 until August 5, 2003, at University Hospital and Medical Center at Stony Brook (hereinafter “Stony Brook).

During the investigation into the alleged medical malpractice of Stony Brook, movants became aware of a recall of neo-natal PICC lines by Arrow Company. Movants argue that Stony Brook never informed them of the recall of PICC lines by Arrow Company. Movants ask this Court to identify the manufacturer of the PICC lines used upon the infant.

In opposition, defendant submits an Affidavit of John Moscarelli, Director of Receiving and Stores at Stony Brook. Stony Brook was supplied with PICC lines from four manufacturers. The Affidavit states that movant’s records are devoid of any identifying information of the PICC line manufacturer’s identity in regard to the PICC line used on movant. In addition, defendant points out that the movant’s admission was from June 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003 and the recall notice is dated December 2004 (defendant’s Affirmation, Exhibit 1).

It is clear from the date of the recall that Stony Brook was not aware of any recall of PICC lines it may have used at the time of movants’ admission.[3]

Based upon the foregoing, movants’ motion for pre-action discovery is denied.

September 13, 2005
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].The following papers have been read and considered on movants’ motion: Proceeding for Pre-Action Preceding Claim For Discovery dated May 12, 2005 and filed May 16, 2005; Affirmation in Support of Proceeding of Mary Anne Walling, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-C dated May 12, 2005 and filed May 16, 2005; Affirmation in Response to Petition for Preclaim Discovery of Ross N. Herman, Esq. with annexed Exhibit 1 dated July 20, 2005 and filed July 21, 2005; Affidavit in Response to Petition for Preclaim Discovery of John Moscarelli sworn to July 19, 2005 and filed July 22, 2005; Reply Affirmation in Support of Proceeding of Mary Anne Walling, Esq. dated July 22, 2005 and filed July 25, 2005.
[2].This is a medical acronym for peripherally inserted central catheter.
[3].The recall notice does not state the length of time that Arrow was looking back in determining that a recall was necessary.