The following papers were read and considered by the Court on these motions:
Claimant’s Notice of Motion for Special Trial Preference filed January 10,
2008, Claimant’s Affidavit in Support, Defendant’s Affirmation in
Opposition, Claimant’s Reply, Claimant’s Notice of Motion for
Special Trial Preference filed January 11, 2008, Claimant’s Affidavit in
Support, Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition, Claimant’s Reply and
the filed Claim. Claimant, Constantinee L. Jackson, a pro se inmate, has
brought these motions seeking an order granting a trial preference for his claim
pursuant to Civil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR) 3403. The underlying claim
contains various allegations of negligence asserted against defendant, the State
of New York.
The Court of Claims Act (CCA) as well as the Uniform Rules for the Court of
Claims (22 NYCRR 206) are silent with regard to the granting of trial
preferences. In such circumstances, the Court must be guided by the provisions
of the CPLR.
CPLR 3403 provides that civil cases shall be tried in the order in which notes
of issue have been filed
, but the following
shall be entitled to a preference:
1. an action brought by or against the state, or a political subdivision of the
state, or an officer or board of officers of the state or a political
subdivision of the state, in his or its official capacity, on the application
of the state, the political subdivision, or the officer or board of
2. an action where a preference is provided for by statute; and
3. an action in which the interests of justice will be served by an early
4. in any action upon the application of a party who has reached the age of
5. an action to recover damages for medical, dental or podiatric
6. an action to recover damages for personal injuries where the plaintiff is
terminally ill and alleges that such terminal illness is a result of the
conduct, culpability or negligence of the defendant (emphasis added).
Claimant has failed to establish that he is entitled to a trial preference
based on any of the enumerated circumstances set out in CPLR 3403.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant’s motions are