| Jefferson v State of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01892 [60 AD3d 1215] |
| March 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Donnell Jefferson, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lopez-Summa, J.), enteredAugust 16, 2007, which, among other things, partially granted defendant's motion to strikeclaimant's interrogatories.
Claimant alleges that while he was incarcerated at Altona Correctional Facility in ClintonCounty, he was the victim of identity theft after defendant negligently granted another inmateaccess to claimant's sensitive personal information. Following joinder of issue, claimant servedinterrogatories upon defendant, which moved to strike on various grounds. The Court of Claimspartially granted defendant's motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. When a party fails to timely object to interrogatories, "appellate review is limitedto determining whether the requested material is privileged under CPLR 3101 or the demand ispalpably improper" (Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d 887, 888 [2000]; see Coville v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.,30 AD3d 744, 745 [2006]; McMahon v Aviette Agency, 301 AD2d 820, 821[2003]; see also Alford v Progressive Equity Funding Corp., 144 AD2d 756, 757[1988]). Inasmuch as there is no claim of privilege asserted herein, the question before us iswhether claimant's interrogatories are palpably improper, i.e., "irrelevant, overbroad andburdensome" (Alford v Progressive Equity Funding Corp., 144 AD2d at 757; seeSaratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d at 889).[*2]
Review of the interrogatories struck by the Court ofClaims demonstrates that they are either vague and indefinite, or irrelevant to the extent that theyseek information related to events that occurred at other correctional facilities and subsequent tothe alleged identity theft (see Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d at 889;Slate v State of New York, 267 AD2d 839, 841 [1999]; Alford v Progressive EquityFunding Corp., 144 AD2d at 757; cf. Coville v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 30 AD3dat 745). Moreover, we agree with the court that, within the scope of the claim, defendantadequately responded to interrogatories 6, 8, 12, 17, 21, 26, 27 and 30. In our view, claimant hasfailed to demonstrate any clear abuse of discretion by the Court of Claims and, accordingly, weaffirm.
Rose, Lahtinen, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.