New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-011-503, Claim No. 103136-A, Motion No. M-64205


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to strike affirmative defenses asserted in the verified answer and for summary judgment are denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-011-503
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN, 97 A 0801
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103136-A
Motion number(s):
M-64205
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 11, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved to strike affirmative defenses asserted in the verified answer and forsummary judgment in this claim in which claimant has alleged that he was not provided his prescribed medication for a period of time after his transfer to Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

A motion to dismiss defenses may be made on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit (CPLR 3211[b]). On a motion to dismiss a defense pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b), all of defendant's allegations must be deemed to be true and defendant is entitled to all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the proof submitted (Capital Tel. Co. v Motorola Communications & Elecs., 208 AD2d 1150). Claimant has failed to establish that any of the defenses are inadequate as pleaded or are without merit. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss defenses is denied.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853).

As noted above, the claim is based upon allegations that claimant was not provided his prescribed medication for a period of time after his transfer to Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Even assuming that claimant was not immediately provided with his medication upon arrival at Great Meadow, he has not made any showing here, nor is there any allegation in the claim, that he suffered an injury as a consequence of the delay in providing medication. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.


January 11, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Submitted:

1. Notice of Motion dated October 10, 2001
2. Affidavit in Support of Shawn Green sworn to the 10th day of October, 2001 with exhibits annexed
3. Affirmation in Opposition of Kathleen M. Resnick, Esq. dated November 14, 2001 with exhibits annexed
4. Reply Affidavit of Shawn Green sworn to the 20th day of November, 2001