New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SINGH v. THE STATE OF NEWYORK, #2006-033-200, Claim No. 110403, Motion No. M-71633


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):
Cross-motion number(s):

James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Babu Singh, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Dennis M. Acton, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 27, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim by Babu Singh (hereinafter “claimant”) for injuries arising from the alleged negligence of an employee of the State of New York (hereinafter “defendant”). The alleged incident occurred on November 3, 2003. Claimant was an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility, Napanoch, New York. On the incident date, claimant was being transported to Shawangunk Correctional Facility for physical therapy.[1] While exiting the vehicle, claimant twisted his knee. A correction officer tried to balance claimant on a loading dock while removing claimant’s leg shackles. Claimant indicates that he passed out and fell to the concrete. Claimant argues that defendant was negligent in not using a wheelchair during claimant’s transport.

Previously, claimant made a motion for the production of the directives for which he is currently asking for an in camera review[2] (M-70520). The documents requested are:
1. Directive 4901 - Transporting Prisoners

2. Directive 4906 - Transfer of Inmates

3. Directive 4918 - Inmate Health Care During Transfer

4. Directive 4302 - Transfers - Special Needs Inmates

The Court held claimant could ask for an in camera review of the documents if he demonstrated a sufficient basis for the request. After reviewing documents, claimant indicates that notations were made in reports that his shoes were untied while he was walking and defendant’s employees cite this as a contributing factor. Claimant seeks the above documents to determine if there were any rules and regulations concerning his shoes and the employees responsibilities toward claimant’s dress.

The Court finds claimant has demonstrated a sufficient basis to request the in camera review of the directives.

Accordingly, claimant’s motion for an in camera review of directives 4901, 4906, 4918 and 4302 is granted. Defendant shall furnish the documents within sixty (60) days of the filing date of the Decision and Order herein.

September 27, 2006
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].Claimant had a prior knee injury which required physical therapy.
[2].The following papers have been read and considered on claimant’s motion: Notice of Motion for In Camera Review of Documents dated April 18, 2006 and filed April 26, 2006; Affidavit in Support of Motion for In Camera Review of Documents of Babu Singh sworn to April 20, 2006 and filed April 26, 2006; Affidavit in Opposition of Dennis M. Acton sworn to May 22, 2006 and filed May 23, 2006.