New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WILSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-032-056, Claim No. 127966, Motion No. M-90200


Case information

UID: 2017-032-056
Claimant(s): ROBERT WILSON
Claimant short name: WILSON
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 127966
Motion number(s): M-90200
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Robert Wilson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General
By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General,
Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: October 6, 2017
City: Albany
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


On May 20, 2016, claimant filed a claim seeking damage for injuries he sustained on March 11, 2015 while working in the kitchen at Five Points Correctional Facility. Defendant filed an answer on July 1, 2016. Claimant now moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3124, compelling defendant to respond to his discovery demands. The motion was returnable on June 7, 2017. Defendant has not filed any opposition to the motion.

CPLR 3101(a) provides that there "shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." "If a person fails to respond to or comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under this article . . . , the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response" (CPLR 3124). Moreover, if a party "wilfully fails to disclose information which the Court finds ought to have been dis-

closed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just" (CPLR 3126). The nature and degree of the remedy fashioned by the Court pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter "entrusted to the [C]ourt's sound discretion" (Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v Cannon Design, Inc., 97 AD3d 1030, 1032 [3d Dept. 2012]; see BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper, 123 AD3d 1255, 1256 [3d Dept. 2014]). Generally, "a trial court is vested with broad discretion in overseeing the discovery and disclosure process" (DG&A Mgt. Servs., LLC v Securities Indus. Assn. Compliance & Legal Div., 78 AD3d 1316, 1318 [3d Dept. 2010]; Hameroff & Sons, LLC v Plank, LLC, 108 AD3d 908, 909 [3d Dept. 2013]).

The papers before the Court establish that, on February 13, 2017, claimant served defendant with discovery demands, seeking the production of documents and photographs. Defendant did not respond to claimant's demands. Claimant then filed a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents on March 30, 2017, and served the Notice of Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and supporting papers on defendant on or about March 27, 2017. Defendant did not file any opposition to the motion. Based upon these undisputed facts, claimant's motion is granted inasmuch as defendant is ordered to serve responses to claimant's discovery demands within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that claimant's motion is granted to the extent that defendant is ordered to serve responses to claimant's discovery demands within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order.

October 6, 2017

Albany, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

1. Verified Claim, filed on May 20, 2016.

2. Verified Answer, filed on July 1, 2016.

3. Request for Production of Documents, filed on February 17, 2017.

4. Notice of Motion to Compel Document Production; and Affidavit in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents, affirmed by claimant on March 24, 2017, with attachments.