New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-011-521, Claim No. 103729, Motion Nos. M-64557, CM-64677


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant's cross-motion is granted. The claim is dismissed

Case Information

UID:
2002-011-521
Claimant(s):
JOE JACKSON, 95 A 0426
Claimant short name:
JACKSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103729
Motion number(s):
M-64557
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-64677
Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Joe Jackson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 7, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved, and defendant has cross-moved for summary judgment. 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).

The claim stems in part from an incident which occurred on November 2, 2000 in which claimant cut his wrist with a razor blade after being told by officials at Great Meadow Correctional Facility that he was being moved from the protective custody unit to general population. Claimant also maintains that he suffered emotional distress in that he experienced fear and panic during the period from September 9, 2000, when he first requested protective custody at Great Meadow, until he was placed in protective custody on October 30, 2000 and again after he was told he was being placed back in general population.

The claim is based upon allegations that defendant ignored claimant's requests for placement in protective custody and attempted to return him to general population without first conducting a hearing. However, both parties have submitted copies of reports that show that officials at the correctional facility investigated claimant's allegations about the presence of enemies at the facility and alleged threats made against him. In addition, the Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4948 which deals with protective custody status does not require a hearing when an inmate seeks to be placed in protective custody.

Thus, the averments made in support of the claims of negligence and deliberate indifference are not supported by anything more than claimant's conclusory assertions which are insufficient to either support a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment or to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the liability of defendant. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied and the cross-motion is granted. The claim is dismissed.


March 7, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

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



Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion dated December 28, 2001
  2. Unsworn affidavit in Support of Joe Jackson dated December 28, 2001 with attachments
  3. Notice of Cross-Motion dated February 4, 2002
  4. Affidavit in Support of Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. sworn to the 4th day of February, 2002 with exhibits annexed
  5. Notice of Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Notice of Cross-Motion dated February 6, 2002
  6. Unsworn Declaration/Affirmation of Joe Jackson dated February 6, 2002 with attachments