New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SALDANA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-050, Claim No. 110524 , Motion No. M-71233


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-050
Claimant(s):
JUAN SALDANA
Claimant short name:
SALDANA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110524
Motion number(s):
M-71233
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant’s attorney:
Juan Saldana, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Stephen J. Maher, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 15, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves this Court for an order "deeming issues resolved" which, in essence, seeks to preclude defendant from disputing at trial any statements contained in claimant's notice to admit. In so doing, claimant argues that defendant's responses were improper.

In November 2004, claimant was an inmate incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility and suffered an ear ailment. He brought this claim in February 2005, alleging negligence and medical malpractice arising from this ailment. In December 2005, claimant served defendant with a notice to admit that contained 16 statements regarding various complaints that he made regarding his ear and the treatment that he received as a result of his complaints. Defendant responded by admitting certain statements and objecting to those portions of the notice to admit that did not comply with CPLR 3123, including those portions that sought legal conclusions, subjective interpretation of events at the heart of the controversy and argumentative statements.

Pursuant to CPLR 3123, a notice to admit may be used when the party "requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which is within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry". "The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial * * *. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial. A notice to admit which goes to the heart of the matters at issue is improper " (Rosenfeld v Vorsanger, 5 AD3d 462 [2d Dept 2004] [citations omitted]). Further, "the purpose of a notice to admit is not to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, such as the taking of depositions before trial" (DeSilva v Rosenberg, 236 AD2d 508, 509 [2d Dept 1997]).

After a review of claimant's notice to admit and defendant's responses, the Court determines that defendant's responses were proper. As such, claimant is not entitled to relief.

Accordingly, claimant's motion M-71233 is denied.




June 15, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed February 1, 2006;

2. Affidavit of Juan Saldana sworn to January 12, 2006;

3. Defendant's Letter dated March 16, 2006;

4. Affirmation of Stephen J. Maher dated March 31, 2006; Exhibits A-D annexed.