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
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
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