New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-056, Claim No. 112352, Motion No. M-74959


Claimant's motion for partial summary judgment was denied as he failed to submit all the pleadings and otherwise meet his burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Edwin Lamage, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Frederick H. McGown, III, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 21, 2008
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for summary judgment on his fourth cause of action which alleges that he was wrongfully confined to medical keeplock status from April 8, 2006 through April 14, 2006. In support of the motion claimant submitted his own affidavit, copies of pages 7, 8, 9 and 17of the claim (claimant's Exhibit A), a Medical Restriction notification dated April 4, 2006 (Exhibit B) and copies of a grievance he filed and responses thereto (Exhibits C, D and E). The pleadings were not submitted in support of the motion.

For the period April 4, 2006 through April 24, 2006 three medical restrictions were authorized by the medical department at Wende Correctional Facility in relation to treatment of an unspecified physical injury: 1) "No work/ No School" 2) "Feed in Cell" 3)"Cane/Crutch Permit" (Exhibit B). Claimant alleges that he was confined to his cell for seven days in violation of the authorized medical restrictions. Although the investigating officer indicated in a memorandum written in response to the claimant's grievance that "[t]he medical form does not indicate 24-hour medical keeplock" (Exhibit C), the formal response to the grievance indicates that "it was the intention of the medical department that you remained [sic] in your cell during the medical restriction" (Exhibit E).

As the party seeking summary judgment, claimant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Cox v Kingsboro Medical Group, 88 NY2d 904 [1996]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of a motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

By moving for summary judgment without submitting all of the pleadings as required by CPLR 3212 (b) the claimant "failed to satisfy [his] initial burden on the motion, thereby obviating any issue as to the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition thereto" (Welton v Drobnicki, 298 AD2d 757,757 [2002], citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853; see also Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [2005]). Moreover, claimant failed to establish that medical keeplock was imposed in contravention of prison protocols (see De Jesus v State of New York, 15 Misc 3d 1105 [A] [Ct Cl 2007]) or to otherwise negate the existence of issues of fact requiring a trial.

Accordingly, claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

July 21, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated May 8, 2008;
  2. Affidavit of Edwin Lamage sworn to May 8, 2008 with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation of Frederick H. McGown, III dated May 28, 200[8].