New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WOODWARD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-028-510, Claim No. 109549, Motion No. M-71011


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-028-510
Claimant(s):
SHAWN WOODWARD
Claimant short name:
WOODWARD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109549
Motion number(s):
M-71011
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
SHAWN WOODWARD, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 17, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Claimant's application to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3124:


1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Shawn Woodward with exhibits filed November 30, 2005;


2. Affirmation in Opposition of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG filed December 27, 2005.


Filed Papers: Claim, filed June 29, 2004; Verified Answer filed August 2, 2004.



Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for an order compelling the Defendant to

respond to his Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated September 7, 2004. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant alleges he was injured as the result of a slip and fall accident that occurred in the shower area of A-block in the Southport Correctional Facility on April 12, 2004. Claimant alleges that he served upon the Office of the Attorney General a Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated September 7, 2004. The State responded to said discovery demand in a letter to Claimant dated November 3, 2005.

By way of this motion, Claimant complains that the State's responses were inadequate and requests that the State be required to respond to his demand "completely and not half-heartedly." (Notice of Motion). In opposition, the State argues that Claimant has failed to specify how the State's discovery response was inadequate and/or which documents were not provided. In any event, the State contends that it has fully responded to Claimant's demand by providing to him his inmate injury report, accident/injury investigation report, portions of his inmate grievance file and ambulatory health record and other medical reports, as well as selected pages of DOCS directives. The State also advised Claimant that there were no reports containing complaints of the same alleged dangerous condition for a 30-day period prior to April 12, 2004. The court has reviewed Claimant's Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated September 7, 2004 and the State's letter response dated November 3, 2005 and finds that the State's discovery response was proper.

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Claimant's motion to compel disclosure, Motion No. M-71011, is DENIED.



January 17, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims