New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

URENA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK , #2008-030-502, Claim No. 113080, Motion No. M-73520


Synopsis


Claim alleging inmate on inmate assault. Order after in camera review of assailant’s disciplinary and psychiatric history. Defendant is directed to provide complete disciplinary history at claimant’s cost, within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of this Order. No material and relevant information contained in psychiatric history of assailant.

Case Information

UID:
2008-030-502
Claimant(s):
GUILLERMO URENA
Claimant short name:
URENA
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113080
Motion number(s):
M-73520
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
ANDREW F. PLASSE, ESQ.
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN M. HEALEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 6, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

In compliance with a Decision and Order of this Court filed October 26, 2007 the State has provided the Court with the portions of the disciplinary history of inmate J. Andujar [82-A-2454], as well as the portions of his psychiatric history, that were directed to be produced for in camera inspection. In connection with the only application before the court, the parties had stipulated to the State’s providing Mr. Andujar’s institutional disciplinary history for the immediate two (2) year period up to and including June 5, 2006, and any psychiatric records for a one (1) year period up to and including the same date of assault, and the Court directed such limited production premised on such stipulation. [See Guillermo Urena v State of New York, Claim No. 113080, Motion No. M-73520, unreported decision (Scuccimarra, J., October 26, 2007)].

The claim arises from an assault upon claimant on June 5, 2006 at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereafter Sing Sing) committed by inmate Andujar. Claimant alleges, among other things, that the defendant had notice of Mr. Andujar’s violent propensities, and failed to adequately provide for claimant’s safety given such notice, by allowing Mr. Andujar to circulate in the general population of the prison.

The Court has reviewed the Inmate Disciplinary History produced for inmate Andujar in camera and finds that the documents contain information which is material and relevant to this claim[1]. The records provided by the defendant are paginated for ease of reference. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to provide to claimant’s attorney, in addition to the certification page from Southport Correctional Facility, copies of pages 1 through 46, inclusive, at claimant’s cost, within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of this Order.

With respect to the portions of Inmate Andujar’s psychiatric history provided, no material or relevant information is contained therein, nor would production lead to material and relevant information, thus no records need be supplied to claimant’s attorney.

It is further Ordered that this material is confidential, and may only be used in the case before this court, and may not be disseminated or shared with anyone not a party to this litigation, except for retained experts. Copies of the documents are being held by the court, in a sealed file, pending final resolution of the claim.

The court notes that the Preliminary Conference Order provides that the note of issue and certificate of readiness are to be filed by February 28, 2008. If the parties anticipate the need for an extension of that deadline, they should submit a stipulation extending the date for filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness, to be “so ordered” by the court.




February 6, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. Although the facility has provided a disciplinary history computer printout that includes infractions occurring more than two (2) years before the subject incident, since those records are mentioned in the records that do fall within the two (2) year limitation and are, moreover, material and relevant to the prosecution of this claim, they have not been redacted in order to avoid unnecessary motion practice.