Holmes v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes v. State

216 A.D.2d 529, 628 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 529 (Holmes v. State) 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

Holmes v. State, 216 A.D.2d 529, 628 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In for [530]*530personal injuries, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 13,1993, as denied its motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding a provision thereto that Items 1 and 2 of the claimant’s notice of discovery and inspection are limited to those portions of the inmates’ files that are material and necessary to the claim; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Items 1 and 2 of the claimant’s notice of discovery and inspection, which requested the claimant’s and inmate Conrad Heron’s complete State prisoner files, should be limited to those portions of the files which are material and necessary (see, CPLR 3101 [a]) to the claim (e.g., exclusive of dental records, package room records, visitor and phone lists, clothing and personal property lists, work and classification records, educational and vocational records, etc.). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In for [530]*530personal injuries, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 13,1993, as denied its motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding a provision thereto that Items 1 and 2 of the claimant’s notice of discovery and inspection are limited to those portions of the inmates’ files that are material and necessary to the claim; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Items 1 and 2 of the claimant’s notice of discovery and inspection, which requested the claimant’s and inmate Conrad Heron’s complete State prisoner files, should be limited to those portions of the files which are material and necessary (see, CPLR 3101 [a]) to the claim (e.g., exclusive of dental records, package room records, visitor and phone lists, clothing and personal property lists, work and classification records, educational and vocational records, etc.). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 529, 628 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.