Notice of Motion, Affidavit, with Attachments 1,2
Defendant’s Response, with Exhibits 3
Claimant’s Response (Reply), with Attachment 4
In this claim, claimant, then an inmate at Mid-State Correctional Facility,
alleges that the State is responsible for his self-inflicted injuries, based
upon its failure to provide him with emergency mental health treatment by
competent mental health personnel. He further alleges that he was placed in the
Special Housing Unit (SHU) at the facility without lawful authority. His claim
is based upon causes of action sounding in negligence and ministerial neglect.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which deprives a party of its day in court
and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a
material issue of fact (Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943). It is the
procedural equivalent of a trial (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). The
role of the Court, therefore, on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve
material issues of fact, but instead to determine if such issues exist
(Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395). In doing so,
the Court must examine the submitted proof in a light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion. Summary judgment may only be granted if the movant
provides evidentiary proof in admissible form to demonstrate that there are no
material questions of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64
NY2d 851). The threshold to be met is high, since “there must be only
one conclusion that can be drawn from the undisputed facts” (Sanchez v
State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 254). Negligence actions are rarely
appropriate for resolution by summary judgment, since they typically involve
numerous factual issues and require an assessment of whether the
defendant’s actions were reasonable (Davis v Federated Dept.
Stores, 227 AD2d 514).
In support of his motion for summary judgment, claimant has submitted his
personal affidavit, together with attachments pertaining to a Tier 2
disciplinary hearing held on December 26, 2003. The documentation submitted
with his affidavit, however, is insufficient evidentiary proof to establish his
right to judgment as a matter of law. Essentially, claimant has alleged that
the State failed to adequately address his requests for mental health treatment.
Claimant has not submitted any proof in proper evidentiary form that would
enable this Court to make such a determination as a matter of law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-71584 is hereby DENIED.