New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PETTUS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-015-155, Claim No. 115283, Motion No. M-75952


Synopsis


Pro se inmate's motion to consolidate two unrelated claims was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2009-015-155
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):
115283
Motion number(s):
M-75952
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
James Pettus, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 2, 2009
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves to consolidate two claims (claim numbers 115283 and 112084). Defendant opposes the motion. CPLR 602 provides that "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order . . . the actions consolidated. . .". The determination is a discretionary one and the party moving for consolidation must establish the commonality of the legal and factual issues involved (see Beerman v Morhaim, 17 AD3d 302 [2005]). Here, the claimant failed to support his motion with copies of the pleadings. However, as the claims are both available through the Clerk's office the Court secured copies and compared the documents. Obviously, it is not the Court's responsibility to obtain copies of documents relevant to a motion. Instead, it is the movant's responsibility and the claimant is advised that failure to support his motion with necessary documentation in the future will result in denial of the motion on that basis.

As to the merits of the instant motion, although both claims relate to the alleged discontinuance of medication they involve different medications (Robaxin [# 112084] and Ultram [# 115283]) and events occurring at different times (December 12, 2005 [#112084] and April 15, 2008 [#115283]). In light of the above factual distinctions between the claims sought to be consolidated, and the claimant's utter failure to submit any arguments on the motion as to the issue of commonality, the Court finds that the claimant's motion seeking consolidation of the subject claims must be denied.


April 2, 2009
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Petition dated November 26, 2008;
  2. Notice of petition dated November 25, 2008;
  3. Affirmation of Roberto Barbosa dated January 21, 2009 with exhibits.