Murtha v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murtha v. Board of Education

272 A.D.2d 230, 714 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5898

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

DecidedMay 23, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 230 (Murtha v. Board of Education) 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

Murtha v. Board of Education, 272 A.D.2d 230, 714 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 5, 1999, which, in this personal injury action, granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery insofar as to direct defendant to deliver the academic and behavioral records of Ramsey M’Badiwe to the court for in camera inspection, but denied plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the grant of said motion to compel and to remand for reconsideration of said motion subsequent to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Mr. M’Badiwe’s legal interests in connection therewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as Mr. M’Badiwe, an individual over the age of 18, has not consented to the release of his public school records, and the record provides strong indication that Mr. M’Badiwe is unable to meaningfully oppose disclosure of those records, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to ensure that Mr. M’Badiwe is provided meaningful notice of and opportunity to be heard in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to compel the release of said records. Appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Mr. M’Badiwe’s legal interests in the present context comports with the spirit of the Buckley Amendment (20 USC § 1232g [b] [2]; see, Sauerhof v City of New York, 108 Misc 2d 805, 806) and with the Regulations of the Schools Chancellor.

Plaintiffs’ request for additional and/or continued depositions was properly denied at this juncture since they failed to dem[231]*231onstrate a substantial likelihood that the grant of their motion would lead to the disclosure of evidence material and necessary to their case (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 5, 1999, which, in this personal injury action, granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery insofar as to direct defendant to deliver the academic and behavioral records of Ramsey M’Badiwe to the court for in camera inspection, but denied plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the grant of said motion to compel and to remand for reconsideration of said motion subsequent to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Mr. M’Badiwe’s legal interests in connection therewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as Mr. M’Badiwe, an individual over the age of 18, has not consented to the release of his public school records, and the record provides strong indication that Mr. M’Badiwe is unable to meaningfully oppose disclosure of those records, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to ensure that Mr. M’Badiwe is provided meaningful notice of and opportunity to be heard in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to compel the release of said records. Appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Mr. M’Badiwe’s legal interests in the present context comports with the spirit of the Buckley Amendment (20 USC § 1232g [b] [2]; see, Sauerhof v City of New York, 108 Misc 2d 805, 806) and with the Regulations of the Schools Chancellor.

Plaintiffs’ request for additional and/or continued depositions was properly denied at this juncture since they failed to dem[231]*231onstrate a substantial likelihood that the grant of their motion would lead to the disclosure of evidence material and necessary to their case (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 230, 714 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murtha-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack