New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMSAMY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-028-519, Claim No. 105598, Motion Nos. M-70519, CM-70536


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-028-519
Claimant(s):
LATCHMIE RAMSAMY
Claimant short name:
RAMSAMY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105598
Motion number(s):
M-70519
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-70536
Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
MORELLI RATNER PCBY: G. Russell Ragland, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Gail Pierce-Siponen, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 7, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In reaching its decision on the current motions, the Court has read and considered the following papers:


(1) Notice of Motion to Compel dated July 26, 2005 and filed on August 1, 2005, together with Exhibits "A" and "B";


(2) Affirmation of G. Russell Ragland, Esq., dated July 26, 2005 and filed on August 1, 2005;


(3) Notice of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, dated August 3, 2005 and filed on August 5, 2005, together with Exhibits "A-E";


(4) Affirmation in Support of the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Compel of Assistant Attorney General Gail Pierce-Siponen, dated August 3, 2005 and filed on August 5, 2005;


(5) Reply Affirmation and Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment of G. Russell Ragland, Esq., dated August 30, 2005 and filed on August 31, 2005, together with Exhibits "A-C";


(6) Reply Affirmation in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Compel of Assistant Attorney General Gail Pierce-Siponen, dated September 1, 2005 and filed on September 2, 2005;


(7) Sur-Reply of G. Russell Ragland, Esq., dated October 6, 2005 and filed on October 7, 2005, together with Exhibit "A";


(8) Sur Reply Affirmation to Claimant's Sur Reply of Assistant Attorney General Gail Pierce-Siponen, dated October 11, 2005 and filed on October 13, 2005.


Filed papers:

(1) Claim verified February 12, 2002 and filed on February 13, 2002;


(2) Daily Report/Order dated July 23, 2003;


(3) Daily Report/Order dated April 28, 2004.


The Claim herein seeks recovery for the improper release of a psychiatric patient, named Jackson Roman, from the Bronx Psychiatric Center, who subsequent to his release assaulted the Claimant, Latchmie Ramsamy.

The initial Motion seeks discovery and inspection of certain non-medical information contained in the records of Jackson Roman from the Bronx Psychiatric Center (Notice of Motion). The State opposed that application and cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Claimant has submitted no basis for the Court to find psychiatric malpractice and that, accordingly, the Claim must be dismissed. The Claimant has opposed the cross-motion.

On the application to compel, the Court notes that during a conference held on October 9, 2002, the Claimant made an oral request for non-medical records of Mr. Roman from the same hospital – the State opposed the request. The Principal Court Attorney for Presiding Judge Susan Phillips Read, who conducted the conference, advised counsel for the Claimant to move for an in camera inspection (Daily Report dated October 9, 2002). On July 23, 2003, after the Claim had been transferred to Judge Richard E. Sise, a conference revealed that no motion had been made, therefore Judge Sise ordered the State to submit the records for an in camera inspection by the Court (Daily Report/Order dated July 28, 2003). No objection was raised by Claimant's attorney either time. Neither did the attorney object, after the Court issued a Daily Report/Order dated April 28, 2004 stating that the records were not subject to discovery (Exhibit "E" annexed to Notice of Cross-Motion). Similarly, no appeal was taken from the Court's decision contained in the Daily Report/Order.

The Claimant now moves for the same relief that had been requested in 2002 and 2003, and which was denied in April 2004. The Court has found no difference in the relief requested and is at a loss to understand why a written application is presently being made – it hopes that the present application is not an attempt to circumvent the time frame in the appellate rules. Claimant's motion is denied.

Turning to the cross-motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether or not the State is liable for the release of Roman Jackson.

The rule governing motions for summary judgment is well established, the movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, eliminating any material issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). The function of the Court on such a motion is to determine if a material issue of fact exists, after examining the proof in a light most favorable to the opposing party (Iwaszkiewicz v Callanan Indus., Inc., 258 AD2d 776). If a material issue of fact is found, the Court should deny the Motion (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395).

After reviewing the papers submitted in support of the Motion and in Opposition to it, the Court finds a material issue of fact exists as to whether the State properly released Roman Jackson.

The Claimant has submitted an Affirmation of Dr. Robert Lloyd Goldstein, a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and board-certified psychiatrist, who concludes that Mr. Jackson did not receive effective follow-up psychiatric care and monitoring after his release from South Beach Psychiatric Center (Sur-Reply, Exhibit "A", p 3). The Affirmation is in support of Claimant's motion and in opposition to the State's cross-motion.

The State has argued that the Claimant has failed to put forward evidence to defeat the State's cross-motion (Sur Reply Affirmation to Claimant's Sur-Reply, p 3 [unpaginated]). The Court respectfully disagrees and, accordingly, denies the cross-motion.



February 7, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims