New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMIREZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-030-544, Claim No. 111052, Motion No. M-71481


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-030-544
Claimant(s):
CESAR A. RAMIREZ
Claimant short name:
RAMIREZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111052
Motion number(s):
M-71481
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
CESAR A. RAMIREZ, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 25, 2006
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 6 were read and considered on Claimant’s motion:
1 Letter Motion by Cesar A. Ramirez, Claimant dated March 6, 2006

2-7 Filed Papers: Claim; Answer; Ramirez v State of New York, Claim No. 111052, Motion No. M-70572, unreported decision (Scuccimarra, J., November 4, 2005); Ramirez v State of New York, Claim No. 111052, Motion No. M-70598, unreported decision (Scuccimarra, J., November 7, 2005); Ramirez v State of New York, UID# 2005-030-555, Claim No. 111052, Motion No. M-70559 (Scuccimarra, J., November 9, 2005); Ramirez v State of New York, UID# 2006-030-514, Claim No. 111052, Motion No. M-70923 (Scuccimarra, J., March 7, 2006).


No opposition filed

Cesar A. Ramirez alleges in Claim Number 111052 that Defendant’s agents at Green Haven Correctional Facility negligently or intentionally lost and/or damaged Claimant’s personal property during a transfer to Sullivan Correctional Facility. In addition to general denials, in its Answer the Defendant asserts five (5) affirmative defenses, including the contributory negligence of claimant or others, immunity, assumption of risk, that the claim is barred by regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Claimant has made a request that his claim be marked “ready for trial” asserting that a substantial amount of time has passed since he first served a Notice of Intention to file a claim and the claim itself. There is no such relief to have a claim marked ready for trial in the Court of Claims. The Court notes that the Claim was filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims on June 23, 2005 and issue was joined on or about July 28, 2005 with service of the Answer.

Thereafter, Claimant commenced a course of motion practice whereby the ink was barely dry on one motion, when another was made. Claimant made a motion for an Order appointing counsel [M-70572]; a motion for an Order granting him an extension of time in order to respond to discovery requests [M-70598]; a motion for leave to depose certain listed individuals [M-70559] and a motion for an Order striking affirmative defenses [M-70923]. The last Decision and Order on the motion to strike affirmative defenses was filed on March 7, 2006.

The present motion will be treated as one requesting a trial preference, since there is no motion in the Court of Claims to declare a matter ready for trial. Under the Civil Practice Law and Rules §3403 provisions concerning trial preferences, no grounds for preference have been adequately asserted. The Court is not convinced by the bare assertion on Claimant’s part that “prolonging the instant case . . . [would deprive claimant] of his constitutional right to due process in lieu of his poverty, older age, and severe ongoing medical problems.” [Letter Motion by Cesar A. Ramirez, Claimant dated March 6, 2006, Page 2]. No supporting information concerning Claimant’s age or medical condition has been provided, and many incarcerated persons have limited means. Because this is a Claim against the State of New York - as are all matters heard in this Court - claims are scheduled to be heard as quickly as possible. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §3403(a).

A note of issue and certificate of readiness is not required for prisoner pro se claims. See 22 NYCRR §206.12(a). Court rules require that after a note of issue is filed, trial should be scheduled within fifteen (15) months unless there is good cause for delay. 22 NYCRR §206.12 (g). By making a motion for a preference Claimant implies that the case is now trial ready, that discovery is complete, and that it may be scheduled for trial at the Court’s convenience, assuming Claimant does not bring on yet another, unnecessary, motion.

Claimant’s motion [M-71481] is in all respects denied.

May 25, 2006
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims