Opinion
# 2016-044-542 Claim No. 117532 Motion No. M-84205
07-05-2016
JEAN BELOT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JEAN BELOT, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Aaron J. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Court conducted in camera review of certain documentation relating to assailant of inmate claimant.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-044-542 |
| Claimant(s): | JEAN BELOT |
| Claimant short name: | BELOT |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 117532 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84205 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | JEAN BELOT, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Aaron J. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 5, 2016 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, a self-represented litigant, filed this claim to recover for personal injuries allegedly received when he was assaulted by Inmate Eduardo Latorres, on August 13, 2008 while both were then in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) at Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira). Defendant State of New York answered and asserted several affirmative defenses. The Court has previously addressed several discovery disputes in this claim, most recently in a Decision and Order dated May 3, 2016 (Belot v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 19, 2016, Schaewe, J., Claim No. 117532, Motion No. M-84205). In the May 3, 2016 Decision and Order, the Court directed defendant to provide to the Court for in camera review copies of the documentation which is responsive to claimant's demand for the security section documentation contained in Latorres' Guidance folder; his description of pattern of Criminal Behavior created upon receipt into custody; Elmira's Initial Security Assessment and designation upon his arrival into that facility; Latorres' reported characteristics of assaultive behavior; and DOCCS Central Monitoring System reports, memos and conclusions regarding the monitoring, evaluations and assessment of Latorres [as well as his criminal history] (id. at 7).
Defendant was directed to provide one unreadacted copy of the material as well as one copy with proposed redactions. Defendant has submitted the requested documentation to the Court as directed.
Defendant was also directed to submit two copies of Latorres' sentencing minutes, one unredacted copy and one copy with proposed redactions. However, Assistant Attorney General [AAG] Aaron Marcus represents that there are no sentencing minutes on file for Inmate Latorres.
Defendant has attached a one-page Inmate Security Classification (the Classification) and a two-page Initial Security Classification Guideline (the Guideline) pertaining to Inmate Latorres as Exhibit A to the cover letter of AAG Marcus dated May 31, 2016 (the Cover Letter). AAG Marcus represents that Exhibit A is responsive to claimant's demand for the security section documentation contained in Inmate Latorres' guidance folder, the description of the pattern of criminal behavior created when Latorres was received into DOCCS custody, Elmira's Initial Security Assessment and designation upon his arrival into that facility, and Latorres' reported characteristics of assaultive behavior.
The Classification contains two redactions: Latorres DIN and his NYSID. The Guideline also contains redactions of the DIN and NYSID as well as Latorres' date of birth, what appears to be an FBI identification number, and the name of the Counselor who prepared the Guideline. Defendant has attached as Exhibit B the same material proposed to be disclosed to claimant with a few additional redactions. AAG Marcus indicates that the proposed additional redactions are necessary because they concern a crime for which Latorres was not convicted. The Court has reviewed the documentation and finds that the proposed additional redactions are not warranted. Regardless of whether Latorres was convicted of the alleged criminal conduct, the nature of the conduct was known to defendant and may be relevant to the issue of Latorres' propensity to perpetrate an assault. Defendant is directed to provide claimant with a copy of the material included as Exhibit A to the Cover Letter.
Although defendant has not provided an explanation for failing to provide the Court with completely unredacted copies of the material as directed, the Court would have required redaction of this information before providing the documentation to claimant in any event.
Defendant has attached Latorres' criminal history as Exhibit C to the Cover Letter. Again, certain information has been redacted from the Court's copy of the criminal history. Specifically, defendant has redacted Latorres' DIN, NYSID, FBI number, NCIC Classification number, the case number, the recipient of the document and the person or reason for which it was created as well as Latorres' date of birth, address (presumably his home address), social security number, fax number, and Criminal Justice Tracking number.
Once again, defendant has failed to provide an explanation for redacting material from the Court's copy of the documentation.
Defendant has attached as Exhibit D to the Cover Letter, a copy of the criminal history with additional proposed redactions. AAG Marcus again states that the additional redactions are appropriate as they pertain to crimes for which claimant was arrested, but not convicted. The Court has reviewed the documentation and again finds that the additional redactions are not necessary. As set forth previously herein, whether or not Latorres was convicted, defendant was in possession of information which may be relevant to his propensity to commit an assault. Defendant is directed to provide claimant with a copy of the material included as Exhibit C to the Cover Letter, with the exception that the information pertaining to the arrest on March 16, 1989 (Cycle 2 on Exhibit C) may be redacted. That arrest did not pertain to a violent crime, and is thus not relevant to this case.
Defendant was also directed to provide DOCCS Central Monitoring System reports, memos and conclusions regarding the monitoring, evaluations and assessment of Latorres. AAG Marcus represents that DOCCS is investigating whether any information exists to satisfy this request and if it does, counsel will provide the information to the Court. In order to move this litigation forward, the Court will closely monitor this situation. AAG Marcus is directed to provide a status report of the investigation within 10 days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
In conclusion, defendant is directed to provide claimant with a copy of the material attached as Exhibit A to the Cover Letter as well as the material attached as Exhibit C to the Cover Letter which has been further redacted by the Court to remove the information contained in Cycle 2. In the event of possible appellate review, the Chief Clerk of the Court is directed to seal and preserve the material attached as Exhibit C to the Cover Letter.
The Court notes, however, that while this information is discoverable, it is premature at this stage to determine whether such will be admissible at trial.
July 5, 2016
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read on this in camera review: 1) Cover letter of Aaron J. Marcus, AAG, and attached exhibits. Filed papers: Claim filed on October 15, 2009; Verified Answer filed on November 25, 2009.