New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MURRAY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-038-507, Claim No. 111328, Motion No. M-72251


Claimant’s motion to compel granted; defendant given leave to move for protective order.

Case Information

JOEL MURRAY, #00-A-1884
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):

Claimant’s attorney:
Joel Murray, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Michele M. Walls, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 12, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 compelling defendant to disclose documents demanded by claimant sometime in or about October 2005. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that on September 14, 2006, it adequately responded to claimant’s demands by producing approximately 356 pages of material. In reply, claimant asserts that defendant has failed to comply with his demands for five specific items. Specifically, claimant asserts that defendant has inadequately responded to his discovery demands because it has not provided the following materials, which are enumerated for ease of reference:

(1) Claimant’s medical records relating to a chest infection in or about April 2004;

(2) Medical records relating to blood work on March 20, 2000;

(3) Claimant’s mental health records;

(4) The complete transcript of a Tier III hearing conducted in July 2004;

(5) Photographs taken of claimant’s arms while he was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility.

Claimant continues to demand production of these materials.

The Court’s review of the materials that have been produced reveals that the materials recited in claimant’s reply have not been disclosed. In support of his motion to compel, claimant asserts a basis of relevancy for each of the items demanded of defendant (see CPLR 3101[a] [1]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407 [1968]; Siegel, New York Practice § 344 [4th ed]). In the absence of further elaboration of defendant’s view that its partial disclosure is “adequate,” the Court will grant claimant’s motion to compel. However – in light of the nature of the discovery demands and the institutional context of this claim – if defendant is of the view that claimant’s remaining demands seek information that is privileged or palpably improper (see Briand Parenteau, Inc. v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 267 AD2d 576, 577 [3d Dept 1999]), it may make a motion for a protective order (see Holy Spirit Assn, for the Unification of World Christianity v New York Property Ins. Underwriting Assn., 116 AD2d 787, 788 [3d Dept 1986]). Such motion, if any, shall be made returnable on January 10, 2007.

Accordingly, claimant’s Motion # M-72251 is granted, and defendant is directed to produce the materials demanded by claimant within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order.

December 12, 2006
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers considered:

(1) Notice of Motion, dated September 5, 2006;

(2) “Affidavit in Support” of Joel Murray, dated September 5, 2006, with Memorandum of Law

and Exhibits;

(3) Affidavit in Opposition of Michele M. Walls, Esq., AAG, sworn to October 5, 2006, with

exhibit A and Defendant’s Response to Claimant’s Demand for Production of Documents,

filed September 15, 2006;

(4) Claimant’s Reply, dated October 8, 2006.