New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JONES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-009-10, Claim No. 107990, Motion No. M-67580


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-009-10
Claimant(s):
MR. THOMAS JONES The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Claimant short name:
JONES
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107990
Motion number(s):
M-67580
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
THOMAS JONES, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 19, 2004
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has filed this motion in connection with Claim No. 107990, which appears to allege negligence and/or medical malpractice against the State based upon medical treatment provided to claimant while he was incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, with Additional Papers Submitted in Support 1

Correspondence to Claimant dated November 17, 2003 from G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq., Assistant Attorney General 2

Notice of Motion, "Affidavit in Support of Judgment of Settlement for Damages" 3,4


Additional Papers Submitted by Claimant, Received November 19, 2003 5


Correspondence from Claimant dated November 21, 2003 6


Correspondence from Claimant received January 12, 2004 7

As indicated by the correspondence from defendant's attorney (see Item 2), claimant has failed to serve his motion papers upon the defendant, as required by CPLR Rule 2214. For this reason alone, claimant's motion must be denied.

Additionally, however, the Court has reviewed all of the papers and documents submitted by claimant in connection with this motion, which might possibly be construed as one seeking summary judgment. However, even with all due consideration being given to claimant's status as a pro se litigant, this Court is unable to determine with certainty the actual relief sought herein by claimant, and his motion must therefore be denied on this basis as well.

Finally, if claimant is in fact seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability in this motion, he has failed to submit any proof whatsoever in proper evidentiary form which would enable the Court to make a determination as to liability under applicable principles of negligence and/or medical malpractice. Summary judgment should only be granted where it has been established that there are no triable issues (see, Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943), and generally, negligence cases are not subject to resolution by summary judgment.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-67580 is hereby DENIED.


February 19, 2004
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims