New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-032-125, Claim No. 114440, Motion Nos. M-75369, M-75386


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):
M-75369, M-75386
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Constantinee L. Jackson, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 1, 2008

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant has made his seventh application to the Court, again pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to compel responses to document demands and interrogatories ( M-75369). Defendant opposes that application and has separately moved for a protective order regarding claimant’s second set of requests for interrogatories and requests for documents (M-75386)[1].

As previously noted, claimant’s reliance on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is misplaced, as “[T]hose rules have no application to actions pending in the New York State Court of Claims” (Brown v State of New York, Claim No. 103284, Motion Nos. M-62961, CM-62991, UID #2001-015-136, [April 4, 2001, Collins, J.]). The defendant has a right to expect that even a pro se claimant will be required to proceed in accordance with the law and the published rules of the Court (Id. [citations omitted]).

Assuming arguendo claimant had made proper use of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the motion would nevertheless be denied. Claimant has filed and served four separate discovery demands, yet on this application has neither indicated nor attached the demands for which he seeks to compel responses (see claimant’s Notices of Motion). Generally, a party is entitled to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR § 3101[a]). However, the Court will not attempt to determine which demands are the subject of the motion (see Banks v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 4, 2008, Ferreira, J., Claim No. 106549, Motion No. M-74502, UID #2008-039-082), nor will it attempt to parse the demands into meaningful and answerable requests. Accordingly, claimant’s application to compel is denied.

Turning to defendant’s application, each of the four filed demands directed to as many as 28 individual “defendants” is patently improper (see Fagbewest v State of New York, Ct Cl, Aug. 19, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104241, Motion Nos. M-66992, M-67010, M-67063, M-67091, UID # 2003-019-555 [questions which seek answers from specific witnesses are not interrogatories]) as well as overbroad and burdensome. Moreover, the demands predominantly seek information and documents subsequent and unrelated to the alleged release of claimant’s name by prison officials on or about May 24, 2007. As examples of this, claimant seeks information on incidents occurring between March 3, 2008 and July 3, 2008, the treatment of prisoners with diabetes, and his medical records. By virtue of the foregoing the Court finds a protective order is warranted (CPLR 3103). As such, the second set of interrogatories and the second demand for production, each dated July 15, 2008, are stricken.

In an effort to expedite this matter, the Court will direct defendant, State of New York to produce any report involving claimant created on or about May 24, 2007 relating to the release of his name within 60 days of the filed date of this decision and order.

Accordingly, claimant’s motion M-75369 to compel is denied in its entirety and defendant’s motion M-75386 is granted.

December 1, 2008
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:


1. Claimant’s Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit;

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Roberto Barbosa.


1. Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation, with exhibits;

2. “Reply to Defendant’s Notice of Motion”.

Claim; Verified Answer

[1]. Defendant has indicated that claimant served two motions to compel which although dated July 15, 2008 and July 23, 2008, are nearly identical and seek the same relief. The Court has before it only the motion dated
July 23, 2008.