Slate v. State of New York

• Decision Date: 23 December 1999
• Citation: 699 N.Y.S.2d 824,267 A.D.2d 839
• Parties: JEROLD S. SLATE, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 96573.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

267 A.D.2d 839

699 N.Y.S.2d 824

JEROLD S. SLATE, Respondent,

v.STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 96573.)

Mugglin, J.

Decided December 23, 1999.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

Mugglin, J.

Perceiving potential conflicts of interest, the Attorney General's office determined that Kirk Montgomery, a correction officer employed at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, as a defendant in a Federal lawsuit stemming from an alleged inmate beating, was entitled to representation by outside counsel at State expense. Thereafter, Montgomery retained claimant as his legal counsel. From October 1995 to October 1996 claimant submitted 13 monthly vouchers, totaling $211,045.44, which the Comptroller paid. Vouchers for legal services allegedly rendered from November 1996 to March 1997, totaling $65,140.89 plus expenses of $2,755.89, the Comptroller refused to pay. This action resulted in which the State counterclaimed, seeking to recover a portion of the $211,045.44 as an overpayment.

During the discovery process, the State sought, inter alia, to obtain claimant's income tax returns and related documentation for the years 1994 through 1997. When claimant objected, the State moved to compel disclosure and claimant cross-moved for an order of protection. The Court of Claims partially granted the State's motion to compel discovery by directing claimant to divulge the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all individuals employed in his law practice during 1995, 1996 and the first half of 1997, and by further directing claimant to submit to the State his case file and billing records in connection with the Montgomery lawsuit, submitting any documents alleged to be privileged to the court for in camera inspection. That portion of the State's motion seeking to compel disclosure of claimant's income tax returns and related documentation for the years 1994 through 1997 was denied on the ground of relevancy and, therefore, the court granted claimant's cross motion for an order of protection with respect to these matters. The State appeals from that portion of the order which granted claimant's cross motion for an order of protection.

The Attorney General argues that discovery of claimant's tax returns and related office billing records would enable the State to show that claimant performed a significant amount of work for other clients during the years in question, thus rendering it impossible for claimant to have spent the number of hours billed to the State in his representation...