New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WASHINGTON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-010-013, Claim No. 97428, Motion No. M-64286


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-010-013
Claimant(s):
HERBERT WASHINGTON
Claimant short name:
WASHINGTON
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
97428
Motion number(s):
M-64286
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
HERBERT WASHINGTONPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 4, 2002
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for summary judgment:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits...........................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...................................................................2

Claimant's Reply Affidavit[1].....................................................................................3

Filed Papers: Claim

Claimant seeks summary judgment on his claim that he was excessively confined in keeplock at Sing Sing Correctional Facility from November 2, 1997 until November 18, 1997. Claimant's Supporting Affidavit, however, asserts at ¶¶ 8 and 9 that he should have been released from keeplock on November 12, 1997.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant a court directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364).

Upon review of all the papers submitted on this motion, this Court finds numerous issues of fact which preclude a granting of summary judgment, e.g., the time period alleged to be excessive; and whether defendant acted according to its rules and regulations.

Motion DENIED.


February 4, 2002
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] While received after the return date, claimant's reply was considered.