Court Opinion

ID: 9966036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:10:03.128251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.797121
License: Public Domain

Cruz v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31529(U)
                     April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158098/2021
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 04:39 P~                                                                    INDEX NO. 158098/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. HASA A. KINGO                                               PART                             05M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          158098/2021
             DAVID CRUZ,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         01/16/2024
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 - V -

             CITY OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS JOHN
             AND JANE DOES, MUHAMMAD AMIR, PATRICK
             CHERRY, MAYKO MATOS, JOHN OCONNELL, GUSTAVO                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             MONTESDEOCA, KYONG KIM, ANTHONY MORALES,                                                     MOTION
             VICTOR LEE, MARTA MENDEZ

                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
            49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,65,66,67,69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       DISCOVERY

                    With the instant motion, Plaintiff David Cruz ("Plaintiff') moves for an order compelling
            Defendant the City of New York ("City") to produce all outstanding discovery, including all
            discovery required by the Case Scheduling Order ("CSO") and all discovery responsive to
            Plaintiffs First Notice of Discovery and Inspection ("D&I"), within 30 days. In the alternative,
            Plaintiff seeks an order striking the City's answer for failing to comply with discovery. The City
            opposes Plaintiffs motion, and cross-moves for a protective order with respect to some of the
            discovery sought by Plaintiffs D&I.

                   Generally, the test for disclosure pursuant to CPLR §3101 is whether the information
           sought is material and necessary. The test is one of relevance, usefulness and reason (Allen v
           Cromwell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). CPLR §3 IOI(a) requires full disclosure
           of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the
           burden of proof (Weber v Ryder TRS, Inc., 49 AD3d 865,866 [2d Dept 2008]). The terms "material
           and necessary" in this statute "must 'be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of
           any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues
           and reducing delay and prolixity"' (Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting
           Allen, 21 NY2d at 406, supra). To that end, CPLR §3126 authorizes the imposition of disclosure
           sanctions, including the striking of a pleading, for a party's failure to comply with court-ordered
           discovery, especially where there is a clear showing that the party's conduct is willful,
           contumacious or manifests bad faith (see Irizarry v Ashar Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 323 [1st Dept.
           2005]; Katz v Dream Trans, Inc., 11 AD3d 412 [1st Dept. 2004]; Frye v City of New York, 228
           AD2d 182 [1st Dept. 1996]). But where, as here, a party has provided generally appropriate
           responses to requested discovery, the striking of a pleading is inapplicable. Finally, pursuant to

             158098/2021 CRUZ, DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                                       Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 04:39 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 158098/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            CPLR §3124 this court can, in its discretion, compel disclosure of information that a party fails to
            adequately respond to.

                    Here, Plaintiff submits that the City's responses to discovery sought have been wholly
            inadequate and that Plaintiff has made ample efforts to confer with the City in good faith, including
            four in-person conferences at the DCM Part, three stipulations extending deadlines, and further
            conferral efforts by email when deadlines were not met. When these efforts failed, Plaintiff
            highlights that Plaintiff obtained approval from this court to proceed by motion. The CSO
            discovery constitutes basic disclosures essential to a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff's claims:
            e.g. identification of witnesses, relevant video evidence, and contemporaneous documentary
            evidence. The D&I is likewise targeted to seek evidence relevant to Plaintiff's claims. For
            example, the requests seek contemporaneous video and documentary evidence of the alleged
            conduct, e.g., Requests 3, 5, & 6, relating to NYSCEF No. 38. The City does not dispute the
            relevance of the aforesaid records. In the absence of opposition, the City will, therefore, be directed
            to provide responses to Plaintiff's requests for discovery that remains outstanding and unanswered.
            To the extent that the City asserts that it cannot locate records that are presumed to be within its
            purview, the City shall provide an affidavit from a person with knowledge indicating affirmative
            steps that were undertaken to locate responsive documents, and the basis for the City's belief that
            the records either do not exist or are no longer in the possession of the City and its companion
            agencies. The City should further recognize that no response to Plaintiff's demands that the City
            has previously no responded to will not be acceptable to the court, and may result in this court
            finding that the City has failed to comply with its discovery obligations.

                    To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting body camera footage, audio recordings, and a
            supplemental response from the City regarding witnesses and potential officers present on body
            camera footage that have not previously been identified, Plaintiff has adequately shown that
            knowledge and information regarding the existence of these relevant items is entirely within
            possession of the City. Moreover, the City cites to no authority that supports the imposition of such
            a duty upon Plaintiff, in contravention of disclosure directed by CPLR §3101 (i), nor does the City
            invoke the exception pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87. Moreover, the Court of Appeals has
            specifically held that a plaintiff need not submit to a deposition before disclosure of relevant video
            recordings (Tran v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 99 NY2d 383, 389-90 [2003]). As such, any
            relevant recordings, body camera footage, or audio recordings in the possession of the City are
            discoverable. Relevant materials, in this instance, include those which depict Plaintiff during his
            interaction with members of the NYPD on June 1, 2020.

                    Notwithstanding, the court notes that the gravamen of the City's opposition and cross-
            motion is tailored to Plaintiff's requests for disciplinary and personnel records for the defendant
            officers in his D&I, demands number 9 and 10. The court is in agreement with the City's contention
            that Plaintiff's blanket requests for disciplinary and personnel records are palpably improper,
            vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome to the extent each demand fails to specify the
            documents to be disclosed with reasonable particularity. Indeed, Plaintiff's demand for unredacted
            personnel files including the names, addresses, social security numbers, and other private
            information of the individually named officers is denied because this information is not
            discoverable and would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public
            Officers Law § 89. Furthermore, the City correctly underscores that Plaintiff is seeking information

             158098/2021 CRUZ, DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                     Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 04:39 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 158098/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            concerning allegations of misconduct that were not like the allegations herein, or false statements,
            and thus are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
            (see In re World Trade Center Bombing Litigation, 93 NY2d 1, 8 [1999]).

                    Nevertheless, Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") records, records of the Civilian Complaint
            Review Board, and disciplinary records and complaints that contain information relevant to
            Plaintiff's claims are discoverable (Chavez v City of New York, 33 Misc 3d 1214(A), *4 [Sup Ct,
            NY County 2011], aff'd, 99 AD3d 614, 615 [1st Dept 2012]; (Rodriguez v The City of New York,
            2016 NY Slip Op 30484 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2016]). To the extent that these documents
            reference prior complaints or disciplinary actions taken against the officers, they are discoverable
            as well (id. at 5). These records are discoverable even if the officers were acting within the scope
            of their employment (Chavez v City of New York, 99 AD3d 614, 615 [1st Dept 2012]). As such,
            the City's cross-motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is narrowly entitled to prior
            disciplinary records for the named defendant police officers, including items similar to Plaintiff's
            instant allegations for a period of ten ( 10) years prior to and including the date of incident, subject
            to the appropriate redactions of privileged information including but not limited to, personal
            identifying information ("PII"). More specifically, the court limits disclosure to a period of ten
            ( 10) years prior to and including the date of the incident and only for items similar to Plaintiff's
            federal allegations of excessive force, deliberate indifference, excessive detention, denial of due
            process, unlawful search, harassment and intimidation, failure to intervene, and Plaintiff's state
            claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, false
            imprisonment, excessive force, unlawful seizure, and unlawful search. Additionally, Plaintiff shall
            sign a confidentiality stipulation to prevent misuse of the confidential materials Plaintiff has
            demanded, including but not limited to the blanket requests for the named defendants' personnel
            and disciplinary records.

                   The court has considered Plaintiff's arguments describing the City's cross-motion as
            procedurally improper, and finds them unavailing. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

                     ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR §3124 that, within thirty ( 60) days of the service of a
            copy of this order with notice of entry upon Defendant the City of New York (and no later than
            June 21, 2024), Defendant City ofNew York shall produce to Plaintiff(i) all Documents and other
            Discovery called for by the Case Scheduling Order in this action (NYSCEF No. 14), (ii) all
            Documents and other Discovery requested in Plaintiff's First Notice of Discovery and Inspection
            to the extent described herein, and subject to appropriate redactions of privileged information; and
            it is further

                    ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR §3126, Defendant the City of New York's failure to
            provide the discovery outlined may result in the striking of Defendant the City of New York's
            answer, unless the City of New York has fully and thoroughly complied with the above order
            pursuant to CPLR §3124; and it is further

                   ORDERED that to the extent that the City asserts that it cannot locate records that are
            presumed to be within its purview, the City shall provide an affidavit from a person with
            knowledge no later than June 21, 2024 indicating affirmative steps that were undertaken to locate
            responsive documents, and the basis for the City's belief that the records either do not exist or are

             158098/2021 CRUZ, DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                      Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
 !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/2024 04:39 PM!                                                   INDEX NO. 158098/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            no longer in the possession of the City and its companion agencies. The City should further
            recognize that no response to Plaintiffs demands that the City has previously no responded to will
            not be acceptable to the court, and may result in this court finding that the City has failed to comply
            with its discovery obligations; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the parties shall appear in the Differentiated Case Management Part, 80
            Centre Street, Room 103, New York NY, 10013, on June 25, 2024 at 2:00 PM to ensure
            compliance with this court's decision and order.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    4/30/2024
                      DATE                                                           HASAA. KIN

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED           GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             158098/2021 CRUZ, DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                       Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]