New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WOODALL v. New York, #2000-015-005, Claim Nos. 98997, 99322, Motion No. M-60945


Absent a demonstration of prejudice by a party opposing the motion, consolidation of malpractice claims involving common questions of law and fact will be ordered.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
98997, 99322
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Norman Woodall, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Timothy P. Mulvey, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 10, 2000
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated December 21, 1999;
  2. Affirmation of Timothy P. Mulvey dated December 21, 1999, with exhibits;
  3. Affidavit in opposition of Norman Woodall sworn to December 29, 1999.

The motion of the defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR § 602 consolidating Claim No. 98997 with Claim No. 99322 and directing that the consolidated claim proceed under Claim No. 98997 is granted.

These are two separate claims brought by an inmate proceeding pro se to recover for alleged medical malpractice by employees of the Department of Correctional Services which occurred at Oneida Correctional Facility from May 15, 1998 through August 25, 1998. Claim No. 98997 was filed on September 21, 1998 and alleges that between June 4, 1998 and August 25, 1998 medical malpractice occurred at the Oneida Correctional Facility Medical Unit when a facility doctor ordered an immediate general surgery consult for claimant's lower right groin hernia and that the surgery recommended by the consulting physician on July 16, 1998 was not performed by August 25, 1998. Claim No. 99322 was filed on November 18, 1998 and alleges that Dr. Daniel Cooly, a physician employed by the Department of Correctional Services at Oneida Correctional Facility misdiagnosed claimant's hernia during an examination on May 15, 1998. Defendant seeks consolidation upon the ground that the two claims involve common questions of law and fact.

Consolidation is appropriate when two separate medical malpractice lawsuits involve common issues of law and fact in the absence of a demonstration of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion (Okin v White Plains Hosp., 97 AD2d 399). In the Court's view, these two claims involve common questions of law and fact and the only assertion of prejudice made by the claimant in opposition to the motion is that he will be unable to recover separate costs for each claim pursuant to CPLR § 8104 if consolidation is granted. The costs controlled by CPLR § 8104 do not apply to a claim in this Court as any award of costs is prohibited by Court of Claims Act § 27. As this claimant has failed to demonstrate prejudice, the motion is granted.

March 10, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims