Opinion
# 2011-015-249 Claim No. 115070 Motion No. M-79749
08-15-2011
JUSTICE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for discovery was granted in part and denied in part. Case information
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦UID: ¦2011-015-249 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant(s): ¦JOHN D. JUSTICE ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant short name: ¦JUSTICE ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (claimant name) : ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Defendant(s): ¦THE STATE OF NEW YORK ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (defendant name) : ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party claimant(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claim number(s): ¦115070 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Motion number(s): ¦M-79749 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Cross-motion number(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Judge: ¦FRANCIS T. COLLINS ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant's attorney: ¦John D. Justice, Pro Se ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney ¦ ¦ ¦General ¦ ¦Defendant's attorney: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Assistant Attorney General ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant's ¦ ¦ ¦attorney: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Signature date: ¦August 15, 2011 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦City: ¦Saratoga Springs ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Comments: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Official citation: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Appellate results: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦See also (multicaptioned case) ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Decision
Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves to compel defendant to respond to his Notice of Discovery and Inspection dated March 7, 2011.
Claimant was acquitted in the killing two persons by reason of mental disease or defect, but was convicted of manslaughter in two separate homicides and sentenced to prison (see People v Justice, 202 AD2d 981 [1994]; People v Justice,173 AD2d 144 [1991]). He was released to parole supervision in 2005 and an Order of Conditions was issued pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [12]. Claimant thereafter violated his parole and was imprisoned in July 2007. The claim alleges, in pertinent part, the following:
"4. . . . From January 24, 2008, your Claimant has suffered under the negligence of the Defendant State of New York.
On, after January 24, 2008, the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health has not been determining if I am receiving the services specified in the written service plan, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 (12).
On, and after January 24, 2008, the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health has not been determining if I am in compliance with the conditions of the written service plan and the Order of Conditions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 (12).
5. Due to the negligence of the Defendant State of New York, I am suffering severe mental pain and anguish, because on any given day I do not know if the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health considers me in compliance with the written service plan and the Order of Conditions . . .
I have lost weight, and . . . [t]he overwhelming worry, fear and doubt have wreaked havoc on my physical health."
This Court's prior Order dismissing the claim for failure to state a cause of action was reversed by the Appellate Division, Third Department which interpreted the claim as seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (see Justice v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1182 [2009]).
Claimant now moves for an Order compelling the defendant to respond to a discovery notice to which the defendant raised timely objections.
CPLR 3101 (a) provides for the "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action". The Court of Appeals has interpreted these words liberally to require the disclosure "of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). Thus, courts have construed CPLR 3101 (a) "to afford parties all discovery that may aid in preparing their case" (JRDM Corp. v U.W. Marx, Inc., 237 AD2d 798 [1997]). The party to whom a discovery demand has been directed may interpose objections, in writing within 20 days, stating "with reasonable particularity the reasons for each objection" (CPLR 3122 [a]). Exceptions to the policy of liberal disclosure include the disclosure of statutorily privileged material (e.g. CPLR 4501- 4508) or material which is privileged under the common law (Wilson v State of New York, 36 AD2d 559 [1971]).
The first item demanded is "[t]he semi-annual CPL 330.20 compliance reports made in relation to your claimant, John D. Justice, for the years 2006 to the present" (claimant's Exhibit A, demand no. "1"). Defendant objected to this demand as overly broad and "not relevant to the time period that is the subject of this claim" (claimant's Exhibit B). Inasmuch as the allegations in the claim are limited to the period from January 24, 2008 to the present, the Court agrees the demand is overly broad in that it seeks compliance reports for years which are not addressed in the claim. However, compliance reports for the period January 24, 2008 through the present are material and necessary to the prosecution of the claim and should be provided.
Defendant also contends that claimant's health care became the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) (now known as the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision) as of July 3, 2007, the date he was returned to DOCS custody, and that, therefore, the "written service plan under . . . CPL §330.20 (12) was no longer in effect" (affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated May 10, 2011, ¶ 13). Defendant appears to contend that compliance reports were not required because a service plan or Order of Conditions was not in effect during the period of claimant's incarceration. Whatever the merit of this argument may be, to the extent compliance reports exist for the relevant time frame (January 24, 2008 through the present) they are clearly material and necessary to the prosecution of the claim. The Court will therefore require the defendant to produce compliance reports made pursuant to CPL 330.20 for the period January 24, 2008 through the present. If no such reports exist, the defendant should so state.
OMH provides services to mentally ill inmates in DOCS custody (see Correction Law § 401; Matter of Justice v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1648 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]). Claimant has indicated that an authorization to obtain copies of the records maintained by OMH has now been provided to defense counsel.
Claimant's demands numbered "2", "3" and "4" seek production of the claimant's "complete record maintained by" Central New York Psychiatric Center (claimant's Exhibit A, demand no. "2", Buffalo Psychiatric Center (claimant's Exhibit A, demand no. "3") and Bureau of Forensic Services of the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) (claimant's Exhibit A, demand no. "4"). Defendant objected to these demands as overly broad and insufficiently specific to enable the defendant to obtain the records. As defendant points out, claimant failed to specify the dates he was confined or treated at these facilities or otherwise provide a proper authorization to obtain these records. Demands "2", "3", and "4" are therefore improper.
DOCS regulations governing the disclosure of inmate medical records incorporate by reference the HIPAA privacy regulations and provide for the release of an inmate's medical records in accordance with Public Health Law §§ 17 and 18 (see 7 NYCRR § 5.24 [a]).
Claimant's demand numbered "5" seeks claimant's "complete record maintained by the New York State Department of Correctional Services." Defendant objected to this demand on the ground that it is overly broad and insufficiently specific to enable the defendant to respond. Defendant points out that DOCS maintains numerous records on inmates, some of which may implicate sensitive security matters and some of which have no bearing on the matters at issue in this case. The Court agrees the demand is overly broad, burdensome and may potentially include irrelevant, security sensitive information not subject to disclosure.
Claimant's reliance on Matter of Konigsberg v Coughlin (68 NY2d 245 [1986]) for a contrary conclusion is misplaced. At issue in that case was a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Law, not article 31 of the CPLR. As the Court of Appeals made clear in Matter of M. Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (62 NY2d 75, 80 [1984]):
"CPLR article 31 proceeds under a different premise, and serves quite different concerns. While speaking also of 'full disclosure,' article 31 is plainly more restrictive than FOIL. Access to records under the CPLR depends on status and need. With the goals of promoting both the ascertainment of truth at trial and the prompt disposition of actions . . . , discovery is at the outset limited to that which is 'material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.' (CPLR 3101, subd [a].) Broad, unparticularized document demands are improper . . . . Unlike the right of a member of the public to inspect and copy the files of government under FOIL, a litigant has no presumptive right under the CPLR to its adversary's files."The defendant need not respond to claimant's demand numbered "5".
Claimant's demands numbered "6", "7" and "9" seek the "employee files" of two OMH employees and a Judge. Defendant objected to these demands as irrelevant and privileged. The Court agrees the materials sought are neither relevant nor necessary to the prosecution of this claim. The and defendant need not respond to demands "6", "7" and "9".
Claimant's demand numbered "8" seeks "[t]he records maintained by the New York State Attorney General's Office" regarding two cases in which the claimant was the petitioner. Defendant objected to this demand on the ground that it seeks information which is irrelevant and privileged. Again, the Court agrees. The relevance of this material is not apparent and the demand includes material that may be privileged (see CPLR 3101 [b], [c], [d] [2]; 4503).
Based on the foregoing claimant's motion is denied except to the extent of requiring the defendant to produce, within 30 days of the date this Decision and Order is filed, compliance reports made pursuant to CPL 330.20 for the period January 24, 2008 through the present.
August 15, 2011
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
Notice of motion dated April 12, 2011; Affidavit of John D. Justice sworn to April 12, 2011 with exhibits; Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated May 10, 2011 with exhibits; Unsworn "Affidavit" of John D. Justice dated May 12, 2011 with exhibit.