Opinion
# 2015-048-175 Claim No. 119760 Motion No. M-85746
03-31-2015
ALVARO HERNANDEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC SCHNEIDER, P.C. By: Eric Schneider, Esq. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esq. Senior Attorney
Synopsis
In an action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Claimant when he was attacked by another inmate, after an in camera review, the Court granted Claimant's motion to compel discovery of certain records related to the incident.
Case information
UID: | 2015-048-175 |
Claimant(s): | ALVARO HERNANDEZ |
Claimant short name: | HERNANDEZ |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 119760 |
Motion number(s): | M-85746 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | GLEN T. BRUENING |
Claimant's attorney: | LAW OFFICE OF ERIC SCHNEIDER, P.C. By: Eric Schneider, Esq. |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esq. Senior Attorney |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 31, 2015 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, Alvaro Hernandez, commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's alleged negligence in failing to protect him when he was attacked by a fellow inmate on January 26, 2011, while housed at the Oneida Correctional Facility in Rome, New York. Claimant also alleges, among other things, Defendant's negligence in failing to properly staff the area where the incident occurred (see Affirmation of Eric Schnieder, Esq., attached Claim).
Claimant brings the instant motion, pursuant to CPLR 3102 (f), for an order compelling Defendant to produce all records related to Lillo Brancato, Jr. and his alleged attack on Claimant (see Affirmation of Eric Schneider, Esq., Notice of Discovery and Inspection, ¶ 9). In response to Claimant's motion, Defendant has forwarded to the Court for in camera inspection, all documents, disciplinary procedures, statements, transcripts and decisions known to the Attorney General's Office regarding the incident and responsive to Claimant's demand.
CPLR 3102 (f) provides that "[i]n an action in which the state is properly a party, whether as plaintiff, defendant or otherwise, disclosure by the state shall be available as if the state were a private person."
Defendant asserts that investigative memoranda regarding the incident were already provided to Claimant.
--------
CPLR § 3101 (a) provides for the "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Accordingly, disclosure is required "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]). However, information that is privileged or palpably improper, "i.e., irrelevant, overbroad and burdensome" is not subject to disclosure (DG&A Mgt. Servs., LLC v Securities Indus. Assn. Compliance & Legal Div., 78 AD3d 1316, 1318 [3d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). It is Claimant's burden initially, as the party seeking disclosure, "to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims . . . and unsubstantiated bare allegations of relevancy are insufficient to establish the factual predicate regarding relevancy" (Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420, 421 [2d Dept 1989] [internal citations omitted]). It is Defendant's burden, as the party challenging disclosure, to establish that the information sought is privileged or immune from disclosure (see Marten v Eden Park Health Servs., 250 AD2d 44, 46-47 [3d Dept 1998]).
The materials requested, including all records related to Lillo Brancato, Jr., and his alleged attack on Claimant, including all investigative and hearing documents, insofar as they reveal prior violent conduct, are clearly relevant to whether Defendant knew or should have known of Inmate Brancato's propensity for violence (see Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 253, 255 [2002]). So too are documents that may establish negligent staffing, training, and supervision of Defendant's employees, which requires evidence that the employer "knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury" (Hicks v Berkshire Farm Ctr. & Servs. for Youth, 123 AD3d 1319, 1320 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Defendant has provided, for in camera inspection, 26 pages of documents, 25 of which are bates-stamped, which include a print-out of Inmate Brancato's disciplinary history, the Inmate Misbehavior Report (IMR) issued to Inmate Brancato as a result of the January 26th incident, and copies of the related investigation reports, witness statements, memoranda, hearing disposition, record sheet, and hearing transcript. Defendant has also submitted the IMR issued to Claimant as a result of the incident, and copies of both Claimant's and Inmate Brancato's Inmate Injury Reports, which contain certain health information.
The Court has carefully reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review, and finds that Claimant's own disciplinary and medical records, bates-stamped pages 10 and 18, which may provide insight into Claimant's behavior, relationships at the facility and injuries, are relevant to the prosecution of his Claim, and are discoverable. Likewise, the Court finds that Inmate Brancato's disciplinary history (bates-stamped page 2), and the investigative and disciplinary records with respect to the January 26th incident (bates-stamped pages 1, 3 [consisting of 2 pages], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25), are material and relevant to the action and are, thus, discoverable. However, a review of the Inmate Injury Report of Inmate Brancato, bates-stamped page 11, does not reveal any information relevant and necessary to the prosecution of the Claim, such that this document should be should be disclosed.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Claimant's Motion (M-85746) is granted to the extent that, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, Defendant is directed serve Claimant with a copy of all documents submitted for in camera inspection, except for the Inmate Injury Report, bates-stamped page 11. The materials reviewed in camera by the Court are returned to Defendant's attorney, under separate cover, for disclosure as directed in this Decision and Order.
March 31, 2015
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Notice of Motion, filed October 8, 2014;
Affirmation of Eric Schneider, Esq., dated October 7, 2014, with attached notice of Discovery and Inspection, Defendant's Responses, and Verified Claim;
Affirmation of Thomas Trace, Esq., dated November 21, 2014;
Documents submitted for in camera inspection, 26 pages.