New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEDINA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-028-571, Claim No. 109170, Motion No. M-71510


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel discovery is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2006-028-571
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MEDINA
Claimant short name:
MEDINA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109170
Motion number(s):
M-71510
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
ANTHONY MEDINA, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Joseph F. Romani, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 27, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

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

(1) Notice of Motion and Affidavit in Support of Anthony Medina, pro se, filed March 30, 2006 with annexed Exhibits A & B;

(2) Affirmation in Opposition of Joseph F. Romani, AAG filed May 18, 2006.

Filed Papers: Claim filed April 9, 2004; Verified Answer filed May 13, 2004; Defendant's "Answers to Interrogatories" filed September 22, 2005.


The underlying Claim alleges that Claimant, an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility, was housed in a cell in which the walls and mattress were covered in feces for approximately 28 days starting on February 11, 2004. The Claim further alleges that prison officials intentionally scattered his papers in the cell amongst the filth.

Claimant served upon the Defendant a second demand for interrogatories on or about December 13, 2005 comprised of 14 handwritten pages and 60 questions, as well as document demands[1] (Claimant's Exhibit A). Defendant refused to respond to Claimant's second set of interrogatories contending that said demand was so "unduly burdensome and prolix as to be oppressive" and requesting that Claimant submit revised demands (Claimant's Exhibit B). Claimant opted to submit this motion to compel the Defendant to respond to his second set of interrogatories rather than voluntarily revise his demand.

By way of background, Claimant previously served upon the Defendant a first demand for interrogatories containing 17 questions. Although Claimant's first demand for interrogatories is not contained in the Court's file, the Defendant's response thereto entitled "Answers to Interrogatories" repeats each demand verbatim. Defendant's "Answers to Interrogatories" was filed on September 22, 2005 and responded to all but one question.

A review of Claimant's second set of interrogatories leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that it contains requests that are repetitive from his first demand for interrogatories, as well as asking for information that goes beyond the scope of normal discovery and/or information which is not material and relevant to this case. In short, the Court finds that Claimant's second demand for interrogatories is improper (Blank v Schafrann, 180 AD2d 886, 887-888 [1992]; Rush v Insogna, 119 AD2d 879, 880 [1986]). Moreover, it is not the function of the Court to prune the interrogatories, rather the demand should be and will be vacated in its entirety (Blasi v Marine Midland Bank of Southeastern N.Y., N.A., 59 AD2d 932 [1977]).

In view of the foregoing, Claimant's motion, Motion No. M-71510, is DENIED.


July 27, 2006
Albany, New York

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




[1].Claimant's second demand for interrogatories is incorrectly dated December 13, 2004, but should have been dated 2005.