New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, #2008-010-005, Claim No. 113835, Motion No. M-74597


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to compel discovery is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-010-005
Claimant(s):
THOMAS EDWARDS
Claimant short name:
EDWARDS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113835
Motion number(s):
M-74597
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
THOMAS EDWARDSPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 20, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant’s motion to compel discovery:
Notice of Motion, Claimant’s Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits...........................1

Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits..............................................2

Claim No. 113835 alleges that on May 30, 2006, during claimant’s incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, claimant slipped and fell on a wet floor after he had finished showering. Claimant alleges, inter alia, that defendant failed to properly maintain the area by keeping the windows open to prevent the accumulation of moisture and posting warning signs regarding the wet floor.

Claimant served defendant with a discovery demand dated August 22, 2007 (Claimant’s Ex. A) and defendant sent an appropriate response dated October 25, 2007 (Claimant’s Ex. B). In this motion, claimant challenges each of defendant’s responses and seeks an order compelling defendant’s compliance. The Court has reviewed each of claimant’s discovery demands and defendant’s corresponding responses and finds that claimant has failed to establish any basis for granting his application.

While the Court is mindful that claimant is proceeding pro se, claimant, nonetheless, has initiated a claim and is bound to some standard of reasonableness in pursuing his claim through discovery and litigation. In response to claimant’s motion, defendant has set forth supporting legal authority and the reasoning which formed the basis for denying claimant’s discovery demands. Additionally, defendant has offered alternatives whereby claimant may amend his discovery demands so that they would not be objectionable. For example, claimant may amend his discovery demands by limiting them to a scope of time and relevancy to this claim and to matters which do not pose a security risk or seek information subject to a privilege of confidentiality.

Accordingly, claimant’s motion is DENIED. Claimant, however, may serve defendant with appropriately amended discovery demands.


March 20, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims