Opinion
# 2015-010-015 Claim No. 123252 Motion No. M-86097
02-27-2015
OMAR WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
OMAR WILLIAMS Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to compel discovery DENIED, defendant responded to all of claimant's discovery demands and the responses were appropriate.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-010-015 |
| Claimant(s): | OMAR WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123252 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86097 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Terry Jane Ruderman |
| Claimant's attorney: | OMAR WILLIAMS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 27, 2015 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to compel discovery:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits............................1
Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...............................................2
Claim No. 123252 alleges negligence and dental malpractice during claimant's incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility due to the delay in extracting claimant's tooth.
Defendant responded to all of claimant's discovery demands (Defendant's Exs. 1, 2). Claimant challenges defendant's refusal to provide claimant with the sought after material regarding a number of claimant's discovery demands. Accordingly, claimant brings this motion for an order directing defendant to submit further responses to those demands. It is noted that defendant's response to claimant's discovery demands articulated the specific reason for not disclosing the sought after material.
The Court has reviewed claimant's demands and defendant's responses. The Court finds that defendant's responses were appropriate. Moreover, defendant gratuitously provided claimant with suggestions of other available avenues claimant may use to obtain the information which claimant requested; this belies claimant's assertion that defendant acted in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES claimant's application for an order directing defendant to produce any further response to claimant's demands.
February 27, 2015
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims