New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PETTUS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-044-500, Claim No. 113751, Motion No. M-74143


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for summary judgment denied as moot, where claim was previously dismissed pursuant to defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Case Information

UID:
2008-044-500
Claimant(s):
JAMES PETTUS
Claimant short name:
PETTUS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113751
Motion number(s):
M-74143
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Claimant’s attorney:
JAMES PETTUS, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 3, 2008
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim (Claim No. 113751) alleging that he was wrongfully confined in a Special Housing Unit at two different correctional facilities (Elmira Correctional Facility and Cayuga Correctional Facility) as disciplinary penalties for violations of, among other things, those facilities’ correspondence procedures. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim (Motion No. M-73639), claimant’s motion for assignment of counsel and for a “(jury) trial (speedy)” (Motion No. M-73637), and claimant’s cross motion for summary judgment (Cross Motion No. CM-73675) were all pending when claimant filed this motion (Motion No. M-74143) for summary judgment.[1]

The Court found that Claim No. 113751 was untimely, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss (Pettus v State of New York, Ct Cl, Nov. 2, 2007, Schaewe, J., Claim No. 113751, Motion Nos. M-73637, M-73639, Cross Motion No. CM-73675). Because Claim No. 113751 has been dismissed, claimant’s Motion No. M-74143 for summary judgment on that claim is denied as moot.


January 3, 2008
Binghamton, New York

HON. CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read on claimant’s motion:

1) Notice of Motion filed on October 26, 2007; “Affidavit/Affirmation” of James Pettus sworn to on October 16, 2007, and attached exhibits.

2) Affirmation in Opposition of Roberto Barbosa, AAG, dated November 5, 2007, and attached Exhibits A through C.

3) Notice of Motion filed on November 16, 2007; “Affidavit/Affirmation” of James Pettus sworn to on November 13, 2007.

Filed papers: Claim filed on May 25, 2007; DECISION AND ORDER, Schaewe, J., Claim No. 113751, Motion Nos. M-73637, M-73639, Cross Motion No. CM-73675, filed on November 2, 2007.


[1]. On November 16, 2007, after defendant's response to this motion for summary judgment, claimant filed a Notice of Motion which sought “an order granting this motion to answer summary judgment within (60) day’s [sic] pursuant to Rules of the Court 202.8 and CPLR 2219.” Notwithstanding claimant’s inappropriate citation to the Uniform Rules for Supreme Court, claimant is apparently requesting only that the Court determine his motion within 60 days after its submission. Accordingly, the Court will treat that “notice of motion” and affidavit as a reply.