This matter comes before the court on the pro se claimant’s motion for
partial summary judgment on liability.
The underlying claim states, in relevant part, that:
[t]his is a two part claim for redress due to intentional tort and personal
tort. The intentional tort arises due to deliberate indifference to
claimant’s immediate dental needs for three months in retaliation for his
exercising a right to be secured in his person (mouth) against unwarranted
invasion. The personal tort arises due to the aiding and abetting [by
“agents, officers and employees of the defendant State of New York”]
of the commission of conspiracy to commit kidnapping 2nd, kidnapping 2nd [sic],
unlawful imprisonment 1st, and obstruction of governmental administration in
violation of Penal Law offenses.
Claimant moves for partial summary judgment on the latter portion of the claim
(hereinafter referred to as “false imprisonment”). In support of
the motion, claimant contends that the defendant did not refute the claim
“in admissible form” - apparently because claimant considers the
answer interposed by defendant to be legally deficient and because claimant also
contends that the State failed to file papers “in admissible form”
in a habeas corpus proceeding which claimant commenced and lost.
Defendant opposes this motion and relies upon a prior decision of this court,
together with attacking the merits of the claim itself.
The court need not address the second prong of defendant’s opposition
(there being no cross-motion before the court), as a ruling on defendant’s
first argument is dispositive of claimant’s motion.
First, it should be noted that claimant himself offered no factual proof in
admissible form in support of this motion for partial summary judgment.
More importantly though, the issues raised on this motion have already been
ruled upon. In a previous motion in this matter (M-71275) claimant sought
summary judgment before Judge Midey on the second cause of action (false
imprisonment) contending that defendant’s answer did not adequately deny
the allegations of his claim. While the language of that motion and this motion
may vary in some respects, the issue presented before the court on this motion
is the same as that faced by Judge Midey.
I am in accord with the decision of Judge Midey and for the reasons set forth
in Judge Midey’s decision in Mitchell v State of New York, UID No.
2006-009-025, Claim No. 111757, Motion Nos. M-71167, M-71275, M-71276,
claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the false imprisonment
claim is denied.