New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CORRENTI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-068, Claim No. 114625, Motion No. M-74911


Pro se inmate's motion to compel disclosure was denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Anthony Correnti, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Michael W. Friedman, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 15, 2008
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for an order compelling disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124. Claimant alleges causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and bailment arising out of the alleged conduct of certain correction officers in revealing to other inmates the crimes with which he was charged and thereafter stealing some of his personal property, or allowing it to be stolen, from his locked cell.

On February 14, 2008 the defendant received claimant’s First Request For Production And Inspection Of Documents consisting of seven enumerated demands (defendant’s Exhibit B). By letter dated February 25, 2008 defendant objected to each and every demand (claimant’s Exhibit B; defendant’s Exhibit C). Demands numbered one through five were deemed objectionable as "overbroad and insufficiently specific and particular so as to be burdensome and potentially inclusive of confidential, privileged or security-sensitive material." Demand numbered six was objected to "on the grounds that it is outside the scope of disclosure as permitted by the laws of this state." Demand numbered seven was objectionable not only because it was purportedly overbroad and insufficiently specific but because "defendant is not required to create documents or conduct investigations in order to satisfy claimant’s disclosure demands." Defendant indicated in its letter that it would not gather the requested documents until claimant narrowed his demands and indicated whether he intended to inspect the documents or pay for photocopies.

By letter dated March 1, 2008 claimant reworded his demands in an attempt to clarify that all of the documents demanded pertained to the property allegedly stolen from his cell and any investigation undertaken in relation thereto. He also deleted the seventh demand contained in the prior discovery request. By letter dated April 15, 2008 claimant again wrote to the defendant requesting a response to his request for discovery. No further response from the defendant was forthcoming and the claimant filed and served the instant motion.

As limited by the wherefore clause of his motion, the claimant seeks to compel disclosure of the following documents. The defendant's response, as set forth in counsel's affirmation in opposition, appears immediately following the demand:
" a) All documents relating to an investigation conducted by Sergeant Pray at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in 2007 regarding the complaint by Anthony Correnti that his property had been stolen. . ." (see claimant's affidavit in support, p. 3).

"RESPONSE: Attached as Exhibit F is a copy of the complete file of the security office of Great Meadow Correctional Facility relative to the complaint of claimant on January 31, 2007" (see defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion to compel, p. 3).

" b) [A]ll documents relating to an investigation done by the Inspector General’s Office regarding the complaint made by Anthony Correnti that his property had been stolen at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, including, but not limited to, documents relating to an interview of the Claimant done by Investigator Smith. . ." (see claimant's affidavit in support, p. 3-4).

"RESPONSE: No such records exist. See Exhibit F" (see defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion to compel, p. 3).
" c) Any documents from the Department of Correctional Services file on Correction Officers John and Greg Rizotti (or Rizzoti) that refer to complaints made by inmates claiming that said officers stole their property, harassed, threatened or assaulted them, or otherwise neglected their duty as officers. . . " (see claimant's affidavit in support, p. 4).

"RESPONSE: No such records exist. See Exhibit F" (see defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion to compel, p. 4).

" d) Any other documents to be used by the defendant to support the defenses made in the answer to the claim or that refer to the theft of Anthony Correnti’s property" (see claimant's affidavit in support, p. 4).

"RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this demand as an improper demand for discovery from the State of New York" (see defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion to compel, p. 4).

The defendant has satisfactorily complied with claimant's request for documents contained in items "a" - "c" set forth above.

Although the defendant's objection to demand "d" fails to state with "reasonable particularity" the nature of the objection as required by CPLR 3122 (a), this demand is plainly overbroad and insufficiently specific to require a response. Accordingly, the defendant need not respond to this demand.

Based on the foregoing, the claimant’s motion is denied.

September 15, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion filed May 5, 2008;
  2. Affidavit of Anthony Correnti sworn to May 1, 2008 with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation of Michael W. Friedman dated June 25, 2008 with exhibits.