New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

STRONG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-011, Claim No. 105656, Motion No. M-66107


Synopsis


Inmate's discovery motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-011
Claimant(s):
PERRY STRONG The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant herein is the State of New York.
Claimant short name:
STRONG
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant herein is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105656
Motion number(s):
M-66107
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Perry Strong
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Mary B. Kavaney, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 7, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimant's motion to compel defendant to produce certain documents. In his underlying claim, Mr. Strong asserts that he was assaulted by correction officers at Otisville Correctional Facility. Claimant seeks the following documents relating to the incident alleged in his claim: misbehavior reports, log-book entries, "use of force reports," statements by facility personnel and inmates, and materials relating to investigations of the incident. Such documents would be relevant and material to Strong's claim and should be produced, subject to any claims of privilege.

Claimant also seeks "any grievances filed against the above named defendants," i.e., the Department of Correctional Services, Sgt. W. Tonic and C.O. Redman. I find such request to be unduly broad; this should be limited to grievances related to the incident involving claimant.

Finally, claimant seeks "material facts relating to previous confinements." It is unclear how such would relate to this claim and accordingly, documents responsive to this request need not be produced.
* * *
In its opposition papers, defendant produces to claimant: an ambulatory health record from the day of the incident; a letter from the Inmate Records Coordinator at Otisville stating that there is no unusual incident report for the incident alleged in the claim; and a "disciplinary hearing packet" on the incident.

Defendant does not address the following items: "use of force reports," statements by facility personnel or other inmates, documents relating to investigations into the incident, and grievances related to the incident. As set forth above, such documents should be produced, subject to any claims of privilege.
* * *
Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-66107 be denied in part and granted in part in that within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, defendant shall produce to claimant, to the extent they exist and subject to any claims of privilege the following documents relating to the incident alleged in the claim: "use of force reports," statements by facility personnel or other inmates, documents relating to investigations and grievances. If any responsive documents are withheld on the grounds of privilege, they shall be submitted to the Court for in camera review within such ninety (90) day period along with an explanation as to the asserted privilege for each such document.


February 7, 2003
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support; and defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits 1-3.