New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MONROE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-009-072, Claim No. 108836, Motion No. M-72257


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to compel was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2006-009-072
Claimant(s):
JAMEL MONROE
Claimant short name:
MONROE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108836
Motion number(s):
M-72257
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
JAMEL MONROE, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 18, 2006
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order compelling the defendant to respond to his previously served Interrogatories.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, with Exhibits 1,2


Affirmation in Opposition 3


Filed Papers: Claim.

In his claim, claimant seeks damages based upon an accident which occurred on July 21, 2003, when claimant was an inmate incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility. On that date, claimant alleges that he was seated in the rear of a van, on top of a pile of wet mops, and further alleges that when the van began to move forward, the rear doors swung open, and he fell out of the back of the van onto the pavement, causing him to suffer personal injuries.

On or about April 7, 2006, claimant served a set of five Interrogatories upon the defendant. On or about May 2, 2006, defendant served its reply to these Interrogatories, in which objections were interposed to four of the five Interrogatories[1].

Claimant, apparently not satisfied with the responses to these Interrogatories, served another demand upon the defendant on or about July 28, 2006, and the State provided a letter response to claimant on or about August 17, 2006, in which it stood by its original responses to the Interrogatories.

Claimant has therefore instituted this motion, seeking further responses from the defendant.

As previously indicated herein, in its original response defendant had provided a response to Interrogatory “1". Furthermore, in its affirmation in opposition to this motion, defendant has now provided a more complete response to Interrogatory “2" and Interrogatory “3". The Court has reviewed the responses to Interrogatories “2" and “3" submitted herein and finds that these responses are adequate.

Defendant continues to maintain that Interrogatories “4" and “5" are overly broad and/or burdensome. In Interrogatory “4", claimant seeks the names, titles and duties of all employees at Mid-State Correctional Facility who have responsibility to insure that inmates are provided with safe working and living conditions, or any policy or directive containing such information. In Interrogatory “5", claimant seeks any statute, law, code, rule, and/or regulation, policy or directive in which the State has waived its right of immunity from liability of negligent acts of its employees. On their face, the Court finds that both of these Interrogatories (“4" and “5"), are overly broad, burdensome and palpably improper, and therefore claimant is not entitled to an order compelling any response to these two Interrogatories.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-72257 is hereby DENIED, for the reasons set forth herein.


December 18, 2006
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims



[1]. In its reply, defendant raised objections to Interrogatories “2", “3", and “4". Although not specifically mentioned in its reply, it is apparent, based upon defendant’s response to this motion, that defendant had the same objections to Interrogatory “5".