New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ALESSIE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-014-519, Claim No. 97072, Motion No. M-61434


In a claim by a former State inmate alleging that he should have been released from prison sooner than he was, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, with leave to renew upon the submission of proper documentary support.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
David M. Blum
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Belinda A. Wagner, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 16, 2000
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read on the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim: Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, Exhibit annexed; Affirmation in Opposition, exhibits annexed. Filed papers: Claim, Answer.

The basis for this claim is the allegation the claimant should have been released from State prison on January 24, 1996, but that he remained in custody until May 1996.

The defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the Parole Board's determination that the claimant be released on January 24, 1996 was contingent upon the development of a satisfactory program for him upon release, pursuant to

9 NYCRR 8002.3(f). See, Affirmation in Support, ¶6. In support, annexed as Exhibit A to the defendant's submission is a Division of Parole memorandum, dated March 6, 1996, describing the difficulty Parole officials were having in developing such a program.

The only reference in the memorandum to the January date is the following: "The subject again appeared before the Parole Board at the completion of his delinquent time assessment and was granted an Open Date effective January 24, 1996."

While it may very well be that the defendant's position is correct, it is insufficiently supported by the proof before the Court to warrant the relief requested. CPLR 3212(b); Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt Team, 88 NY2d 628, 648. "Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which ‘deprives the litigant of his day in court * * * [and therefore] should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues.' [Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 363; Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 311.]" Martin v Briggs, 235 AD2d 192, 196.

For the foregoing reason, the defendant's motion is denied, with leave to renew upon submission of proper documentary evidence in support.

August 16, 2000
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims