New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-081, Claim No. 101202, Motion Nos. M-66732, M-66733, M-66804, M-67274


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
M-66732, M-66733, M-66804, M-67274
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Defendant's attorney:
New York State Attorney General
BY: TIMOTHY P. MULVEY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 31, 2003

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant has filed four separate, but related motions concerning discovery in this matter that are currently pending before the Court. In the interest of judicial economy, all motions will be considered together in this decision. In his underlying action, Claimant alleges that, on October 6, 1998, he was assaulted by correction officers. Following the assault, he was denied appropriate medical care for the injuries he sustained. Finally, he alleges that he was denied due process at a resulting disciplinary hearing held on October 13, 1998, and was illegally confined following the hearing. In his first motion (M-66732), Claimant requests that the Court direct Defendant to provide further responses to Claimant's October 15, 2002 discovery demands. I have reviewed the demands and Defendant's responses and find that Defendant appropriately objected to items 5, 10, and 14. Each of those demands request material that is both protected from disclosure by privilege and irrelevant to the prosecution of this claim. However, it appears that many of Claimant's objections relate to Defendant's reference in its responses to the attached Unusual Incident Report. According to Claimant, this report was not attached to the responses he received. Additionally, in item 1, Claimant requested a copy of his own medical records. I find that this request is reasonable and that Claimant is entitled to these documents upon providing Defendant with an appropriate authorization. Therefore, Defendant is directed to provide to Claimant the Unusual Incident Report concerning the events at issue in this matter, and Claimant's medical records from October 6, 1998 to date.

Claimant's next motion (M-66733) relates to Claimant's understanding that some of his mailings to the Assistant Attorney General handling this claim are not being received. Claimant requests that all further discovery be overseen by the Court. This I decline to do. I find that Claimant has made no showing of the need for such extraordinary relief. For this reason, motion M-66733 is denied in its entirety.

In his third motion (M-66804), Claimant asks that I compel Defendant to provide further and more complete responses to Claimant's discovery demands of November 16, 2002. These demands relate to the disciplinary hearing held on October 13, 1998. Many of the demands are inartfully worded and request, in general, information concerning the process and regulations governing inmate disciplinary hearings as contained in 7 NYCRR § 251 et. seq. This information may be obtained by Claimant in his facility's law library. However, to the extent that Defendant is in possession of records specifically relating to Claimant's October 13, 1998 disciplinary hearing, I direct that these records be produced to Claimant.

In his final motion (M-67274), Claimant requests that Defendant provide further and more complete responses to his demands dated November 4, 2002. Specifically, the demands at issue relate to personal background information regarding one of the Defendant's agents allegedly involved in the improper use of force against Claimant. I find that the demands are irrelevant to the prosecution of Claimant's case as well as protected by Civil Rights Law § 50-a. Defendant's objections to these demands were, therefore, appropriate.

Finally, I note that Claimant's right to receive the documents I have directed Defendant to produce are subject to Defendant's right to require Claimant to pay reasonable photocopying costs of demanded discovery documents (Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530). For this reason, Defendant shall provide either the documents themselves, or alternatively an indication of the number of pages comprising each document and the reasonable photocopying expenses therefore, to Claimant within 30 days of the filed date of this order. In the event that Defendant elects the latter alternative, Defendant shall provide the documents themselves to Claimant within 30 days of receipt of Claimant's payment of reasonable photocopying expenses.

Based upon the foregoing it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motions M-66732 and M-66804 are granted in part and Defendant is directed to provide the documents as set forth above; and it is further

ORDERED, that all further relief requested by Claimant is denied.

October 31, 2003
Rochester, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims