New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LINER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-092, Claim No. 113778, Motion No. M-75277


Claimant's motion to compel discovery was denied as some of the demands were complied with and others were objectionable.

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:
Joshua Liner, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Paul F. Cagino, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 19, 2008
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, an inmate pro se, moves to compel discovery. In a Decision and Order dated September 18, 2007, Judge Moriarty dismissed claimant's first cause of action as untimely, leaving claimant's second cause of action for bailment arising out of the loss of property on February 5, 2007 and the third cause of action for ministerial negligence and bailment arising out of various incidents occurring from February 2007 through March 2007 at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.[1] Although the claimant failed to annex to his motion a copy of the discovery demand to which he seeks to compel a response, the defendant's Response to Claimant's Demand for Disclosure dated May 27, 2008 contains a recitation of each demand together with its response thereto. Claimant's affidavit submitted in support of his motion indicates that the demands at issue are numbered "5", "9", "10" and "12". These demands and the defendant's responses thereto are as follows:
  1. DEMAND: " Produce for discovery said I-64 Form relating to the claimant's transfer to Great Meadow Correctional Facility?" [2]
RESPONSE: "Attached is a copy of an I-64 form, dated February 5, 2007."
  1. DEMAND: "Disclosure here expands to tv permit regarding lost tv item."
RESPONSE: "This document can be inspected by making a written request to the inmate records coordinator at the facility."
  1. DEMAND: "Any and all grievances your defendant-client possess [sic], rather from employee, personnel pertinent to said duties possess within the business hours of DOCS Great Meadow Corr. Fac. Relating to complaints placed on file upon food denials at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Directing defendant to furnish also any written record of complaints to his office, this include [sic] under his official capacity as Governor."
RESPONSE: "This demand is ambiguous, as defendant does not understand what documents claimant seeks to have produced."
  1. DEMAND: "The full name of each officer whom was responsible for the taking of evening shift meal list for "B" Block (B-3) company."
RESPONSE: "This demand is improper as it insufficiently identifies the dates for the information that claimant seeks."

With respect to demand number "5" above, the defendant conducted a further search of its records and has now provided the claimant with an additional I-64 form dated March 12, 2007.

With respect to demand number "9" set forth above, the defendant indicates that permits may be obtained by submitting a request to the inmate records coordinator at the facility.

With respect to demand number "10" above, the Court agrees with the defendant that this demand is ambiguous and largely incomprehensible.

With respect to demand number "12" set forth above, the defendant's objection to this demand is proper as the demand is unlimited as to the period of time for which this information is sought.

Based on the foregoing, the claimant's motion to compel discovery is denied.

November 19, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:

  1. Notice of motion dated July 15, 2008;
  2. Affidavit of Joshua Liner sworn to July 15, 2008;
  3. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino sworn to August 18, 2008 with exhibits.

[1]. Judge Moriarty denied defendant's motion to dismiss the third cause of action for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that the cause of action could be construed as alleging causes of action for ministerial neglect and bailment. In this regard, the third cause of action alleges that the claimant was placed behind plexiglass, deprived of one hour of recreation, deprived of food, and that a green shirt was taken by G. Wennsworth on March 21, 2007.
[2]. The demands are quoted exactly as they appear in the defendant's Response to Claimant's Demand for Disclosure dated May 27, 2008.