New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
DOLBERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-040-010, Claim No. 129253, Motion No. M-91317

Synopsis

Claimant's request for interrogatories denied.

Case information

UID: 2018-040-010
Claimant(s): ANDRE DOLBERRY
Claimant short name: DOLBERRY
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 129253
Motion number(s): M-91317
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant's attorney: Andre Dolberry, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: February 1, 2018
City: Albany
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion of pro se Claimant, Andre Dolberry, for interrogatories is denied.

This pro se Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on February 1, 2017, alleges that, on August 18, 2016, while incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility, Claimant was assaulted by four inmates as a result of the State's failure to properly supervise them. The Claim also asserts that Claimant lost some of his personal property when, after the assault, he was transferred to the Special Housing Unit.

CPLR 3132 provides, in pertinent part, that, after commencement of an action, a party may serve upon another party written interrogatories. This is Claimant's second Motion seeking to have Defendant respond to interrogatories. The prior Motion was denied by this Court on the basis that Claimant failed to set forth that he served any interrogatories upon the State (Dolberry v State of New York, UID No. 2017-040-078 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., July 6, 2017]).

Defendant opposes the Motion on the ground that Claimant has not served a discovery demand upon the State relating to this Claim (Affirmation in Opposition of Christina Calabrese, Esq., 4). Claimant has attached a set of interrogatories to his Motion papers, but has not established that he served Defendant with the interrogatories, or that Defendant failed to comply with them, prior to making this Motion as required by CPLR 3132.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Motion for interrogatories is denied.

February 1, 2018

Albany, New York

CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion for interrogatories:

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion and Statement in Support 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2

Papers Filed: Claim, Answer