DeLeon v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeLeon v. State of New York

52 A.D.3d 1282, 858 N.Y.S.2d 616

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2008

DocketClaim No. 110416

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1282 (DeLeon v. State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeLeon v. State of New York, 52 A.D.3d 1282, 858 N.Y.S.2d 616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Philip J. Patti, J.), entered November 30, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of claimant’s motion seeking assignment of counsel and denied that part of the motion with respect to certain requests to compel disclosure.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate in a correctional facility, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he was assaulted by correction officers and denied appropriate medical treatment following the assault. The Court of Claims properly exercised its discretion insofar as it denied that part of claimant’s motion seeking assignment of counsel (see generally Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433, 439 [1975]), and denied that part of the motion with respect to certain requests to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124. “While disclosure provisions are to be liberally construed, the trial court is vested with broad discretion to supervise discovery and determine what is ‘material and necessary’ under CPLR 3101 (a)” (Mora v RGB, Inc., 17 AD3d 849, 851 [2005]). Here, there has been no showing of the requisite “ ‘clear abuse of discretion [to] prompt appellate action’ ” with respect to claimant’s disclosure requests (Community Dev. Assn. v Warren-Hoffman & Assoc., 4 AD3d 755 [2004]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Philip J. Patti, J.), entered November 30, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of claimant’s motion seeking assignment of counsel and denied that part of the motion with respect to certain requests to compel disclosure.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate in a correctional facility, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he was assaulted by correction officers and denied appropriate medical treatment following the assault. The Court of Claims properly exercised its discretion insofar as it denied that part of claimant’s motion seeking assignment of counsel (see generally Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433, 439 [1975]), and denied that part of the motion with respect to certain requests to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124. “While disclosure provisions are to be liberally construed, the trial court is vested with broad discretion to supervise discovery and determine what is ‘material and necessary’ under CPLR 3101 (a)” (Mora v RGB, Inc., 17 AD3d 849, 851 [2005]). Here, there has been no showing of the requisite “ ‘clear abuse of discretion [to] prompt appellate action’ ” with respect to claimant’s disclosure requests (Community Dev. Assn. v Warren-Hoffman & Assoc., 4 AD3d 755 [2004]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 1282, 858 N.Y.S.2d 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleon-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack