New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRITO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-040-057, Claim No. 113865, Motion No. M-76648


Motion to compel discovery responses 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:
Leslie Brito, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Kent B. Sprotbery, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 10, 2009

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


For the reasons set forth below, Claimant’s motion to compel the State to respond to discovery demands is denied.
The Amended Claim, which was filed with the Clerk on October 16, 2008, arises in connection with medical treatment received by Claimant, Leslie Brito, when he was incarcerated at Greene Correctional Facility (hereinafter Greene) in Coxsackie, New York. In his Claim, Claimant states that, on March 2, 2006 he was placed in the care and custody of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) at Downstate Correctional Facility. He was given a medical examination at Downstate and transferred to Bare Hill Correctional Facility.[1] Claimant states that, during the months of March through June 2006, he made frequent complaints of sudden and unanticipated bleeding.[2] Because of those symptoms, he was seen by a cardiologist on April 17, 2006 and again in May 2006. He was then moved to Greene. He asserts that the move was made because the cardiologist recommended that he be held at a location closer to a regional medical unit. He states that, in June 2006, he reported more unanticipated episodes of bleeding but was told that nothing could be done. On July 6, 2006, he experienced a particularly serious episode and requested medical assistance. He asserts that his request was denied for some time, despite repeated requests, but, after approximately 25 minutes, he was sent to the infirmary. There, he was given gauze and told to hold his head over a basin. He became light-headed and fell out of his chair. He was then placed on an examination table, and the bleeding continued. He estimates that it was approximately one and one-half hours before he was taken to an outside hospital. The bleeding was stopped and he was returned to Greene the following day. Claimant also alleges another serious bleeding episode occurred on February 14, 2008 and, again, he alleges he did not receive adequate medical care. Based on those facts, Claimant alleges multiple causes of action in negligence or medical malpractice, which either assert that he received inadequate medical treatment, or set forth various types of damages that he allegedly sustained.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Claimant failed to identify or set forth the requested documents that are the subject of his motion. The Court further notes, however, that a copy of Claimant’s “Notice of Request for Discovery and Production of Documents” was filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 4, 2008. The State, likewise, received Claimant’s “Demand for Discovery and Inspection” on December 4, 2008 (see Affirmation in Opposition of Kent B. Sprotbery, Esq., ¶ 3). Defense Counsel apparently forwarded the demand to DOCS for response. On June 2, 2009, Defense Counsel received “responsive documentation” from DOCS (id., ¶ 4). Defendant then served a response to Claimant’s Discovery Demand on June 3, 2009 (id., ¶ 5). Defendant has also provided the Court with a copy of its response (id., Ex. A).
The Court has reviewed the responses and documents provided to Claimant. They are responsive to the Notice filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 4, 2008. Thus, the Court concludes that the State has complied with Claimant’s demands. The motion to compel the State to respond is, therefore, denied as moot. If Claimant objects to any specific response, he may make the appropriate motion.
July 10, 2009
Albany, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant’s motion to compel:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support 1
Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits attached 2
Filed Papers: Claim, Answer, Amended Claim, Verified Answer to Amended/Supplemented Complaint, Amended Verified Answer, Notice of Request for Discovery and Production of Documents and Response to Discovery and Inspection Demand

[1]. In the Claim, Claimant states that he suffers from chronic heart disease, Graves’ disease, liver disease, ascites and edema, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and chronic fatigue.
[2]. Although he does not specifically state the location of the bleeding, it appears from descriptions in his Claim that he was bleeding from his nose and mouth.