Di Santo v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1963 |
| Citation | 245 N.Y.S.2d 234,41 Misc.2d 601 |
| Parties | Rudolph DI SANTO, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York. |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
Markhoff, Gottlieb & Harkins, for claimant, by Nathan L. Levine, New York City, of counsel.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty., Gen., by Maynard, O'Connor & Smith, Albany, for the State of New York, by Arthur Flores, Albany, of counsel.
This is a motion for an order, pursuant to Section 17 of the Court of Claims Act and Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, directing the State of New York, by the District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and such other state employees having personal knowledge of the facts pertaining to the subject matter of the examination, to submit to an examination before trial, as an adverse party. An order is sought also, for the purposes authorized by Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, for the production at such examination of the construction contract, specifications, contract drawings, blueprints, diaries, Superintendent's Records, books, records and papers pertaining to this instant matter.
The State does not object to an examination before trial of the District Engineer as a representative of the State.
The State opposes the 'production of materials listed' upon the ground that while under Rule 3111 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules a notice or subpoena to take a deposition may require the production of books papers and other things in the possession, custody or control of the person examined to be marked as exhibits and used on the examination, no provision is made for such a production on an order to take a deposition; that under Section 3102(f) in an action in the Court of Claims, disclosure may be obtained only by an order of this Court. The State contends that even if production of records should be allowed, it should be limited to use by the examined party for refreshing his recollection and marked for identification if necessary; further, that the order should be limited to specific documents enumerated in the motion and that there should be no general inspection allowed of the other papers demanded. The State insists that if the Court should order production, it should indicate that these items are not being produced for discovery and inspection.
The proposition advanced by the State that the Civil Practice Law and Rules are not applicable in this Court because Rule 3111 provides for an examination by means of a notice or subpoena, while Section 3102(f) provides that in an action in this Court disclosure may be obtained only by order, is not impressive. The scope of the examination is not limited thereby, but only the method employed to obtain the examination. The said subdivision (f) was added at the suggestion of the Attorney General's office on the ground that any other rule would burden the State unnecessarily. It was contemplated, however, that disclosure will be rather freely granted by the Court of Claims. (Note of Advisory Committee.)
The language in Rule 3111 was inserted upon suggestion of the Joint Committee on the CPA, which was opposed to perpetuating the solecism formerly contained in CPA, § 296 which related to the reception of documents 'in evidence upon a deposition'. The phrase 'in the possession, custody or control of the person to be examined' has been added for the sake of clarity. (Advisory Committee notes.)
The State argues that the Court's lack of jurisdiction is borne out by the fact that 'a 1963 legislative session of this State saw the passage in both legislative houses of an act to amend the Court of Claims Act by adding a new section 17(a) which would have given this Court the power to compel the State * * * 'to give the state or interpleaded party, an inspection * * * of a book, document or other paper * * *' and further gave this Court power to order * * * 'the foregoing production and discovery as an incident to an examination before trial granted pursuant to section seventeen of this act.'' The State alleges that this act was vetoed by the Governor, and concludes that the Legislature was 'of the opinion that this Court was without jurisdiction either under the Court of Claims Act or the Civil Practice Law and Rules to require the production of books and records at an examination before trial or to order a discovery and inspection.'
This bill, Senate Intro. 515, Print No. 515, prefiled January 9, 1963, passed both Houses and was delivered to the Governor on March 14, 1963. It was recalled from the Governor on March 26, 1963. The Senate vote was reconsidered and the bill was eventually recommitted to the Codes Committee where it died. While the bill was in the hands of the Governor, his counsel requested a memorandum from the then Presiding Judge of this Court. The memorandum submitted by the latter stated as follows:
'The subject bill would make the procedure of discovery and inspection available to a claimant in the Court of Claims.
' § 3102, sub-div. f, of the New Civil Practice Law and Rules, effective September 1, 1963, provides that in an action in the Court of Claims disclosure may be obtained only by order of the court. This provision will make the procedure of disclosure available to parties to an action in the Court of Claims. Discovery and production of documents and things for inspection are included in the procedure of disclosure. §§ 3102, 3120, Civil Practice Law and Rules.
'In view of the fact that the remedy of disclosure will become available in an action in the Court of Claims on September 1, 1963, it is my opinion that the new section which subject bill would add to the Court of Claims Act will be superfluous and for this reason I recommend disapproval of the bill.'
It is obvious that the reason for the recommitment of the bill to the Codes Committee may have been the content of this memorandum, rather than the belief of the Legislature that this Court was without jurisdiction. In any event, this Court subscribes to the statements made in this memorandum.
There was a further bill, introduced with the approval of the Attorney General. This bill, Senate Intro. 3735, Print No. 4434, filed March 27, 1963, companion bill to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michigan Mut. Liability Co. v. State
...962; Peters v. State of New York, 41 Misc.2d 980, 247 N.Y.S.2d 811, affd. 22 A.D.2d 764, 253 N.Y.S.2d 260; Di Santo v. State of New York, 41 Misc.2d 601, 245 N.Y.S.2d 234, affd. 22 A.D.2d 289, 254 N.Y.S.2d 965. Cf. Gould v. State of New York, 196 Misc. 488, 92 N.Y.S.2d 251; Pennbild Realty ......
-
Jordan v. State
...of the CPLR as a means of proving either the existence of an invalid commitment or the non-existence of a commitment. (DiSanto v. State, 41 Misc.2d 601, 245 N.Y.S.2d 234, affd. 22 A.D.2d 289, 254 N.Y.S.2d Claimant has failed to produce any evidence of the non-existence of a valid order of c......
-
Tavormina v. State
...v. State of New York, 24 A.D.2d 551, 261 N.Y.S.2d 454; Di Santo v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 289, 254 N.Y.S.2d 965, affg. 41 Misc.2d 601, 245 N.Y.S.2d 234.) Under its standards, full disclosure of material and necessary evidence by a nonparty is permissible when justified by "adequate sp......
-
D. A. Collins Const. Co. v. State
...in DiSanto v. State, 22 A.D.2d 289, 254 N.Y.S.2d 965, where the Appellate Division, in affirming this Court (opinion below 41 Misc.2d 601, 245 N.Y.S.2d 234), stated that the only limitation on disclosure in the Court of Claims was that it must be obtained by order of the Court, and that the......