New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-044-517, Claim No. 109512, Motion No. M-72126


Synopsis


Discovery responses submitted during the pendency of claimant’s motion to compel render the motion moot. Nonetheless, claimant’s “interrogatories” are essentially depositions on written questions and, absent defendant’s consent, are improper.

Case Information

UID:
2006-044-517
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109512
Motion number(s):
M-72126
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Claimant’s attorney:
SHAWN GREEN, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 21, 2006
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim against defendant State of New York (“defendant”) alleging that he was not provided with adequate medical care because he was deprived of prescription medication, a diabetic diet and barber services (for trimming his beard).[1] Claimant now moves to compel a response to his discovery demands. Defendant opposes the motion.


Claimant served a document entitled “Interrogatories and Discovery to Defendant” on or about April 19, 2006. Defendant’s response was served on August 8, 2006. Given that defendant has responded, this motion is denied as moot.

However, even if the Court addressed the merits of the motion, the requested relief would be denied. Claimant’s “Interrogatories”, which ask defendant to “[s]tate the number of days claimant requested recreation and number of days claimant received recreation while in B-4-11 and A-8-19 [and] [s]tate the amount of times per week Southport SHU inmates have access to shaving equipment”, are more akin to a deposition on written questions. Claimant has also included a “Written Deposition” containing 18 questions directed to John Alves, presumably a physician employed by the Department of Correctional Services. Given that defendant has not stipulated to use the discovery device of a deposition on written questions, claimant’s “Interrogatories” and “Written Deposition” are improper (see CPLR 3108). With respect to claimant’s request for certain documents, defendant has responded by making the copies available upon payment of a designated fee.[2]

Claimant’s Motion No. M-72126 to compel discovery is denied in its entirety.


November 21, 2006
Binghamton, New York

HON. CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read on claimant’s motion to compel discovery:

1) Notice of Motion filed July 7, 2006; Affidavit of Shawn Green sworn to July 3, 2006; and Memorandum of Law dated July 3, 2006.

  1. Affirmation in Opposition of Joseph F. Romani, AAG dated September 15, 2006 and annexed Exhibits A and B.
Filed Papers: Claim filed June 21, 2004; Verified Answer filed July 23, 2004; Supplemental Claim filed July 19, 2004 and Verified Answer to Supplemental Claim filed August 16, 2004.



[1]. Claimant’s supplemental claim adds two bailment causes of action.
[2]. Defendant has indicated that the Health Services Policy Manual is available to claimant through his facility.