New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
RAMOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-015-295, Claim No. 127041-A, Motion No. M-91465

Synopsis

Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as procedurally defective because he failed to include copies of the pleadings.

Case information

UID: 2017-015-295
Claimant(s): JOHN RAMOS
Claimant short name: RAMOS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 127041-A
Motion number(s): M-91465
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: John Ramos, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: January 2, 2018
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for partial summary judgment on his cause of action for wrongful confinement.

Following a prison disciplinary hearing claimant was found guilty of violent conduct, interference with an employee, and refusing a direct order. The hearing determination was reversed on September 29, 2015 on the ground that "[p]er the private settlement agreement there is a presumption against pursuing charges for self-harming behavior and threats of self-harming behavior, including related charges" (claimant's Exhibit B). Claimant contends in support of his motion for partial summary judgment that the private settlement agreement to which the administrative determination refers is codified in Correction Law 401 (3) which states, in pertinent part, "there will be a presumption against imposition and pursuit of disciplinary charges for self-harming behavior and threats of self-harming behavior, including related charges for the same behaviors, such as destruction of state property, except in exceptional circumstances." Without addressing the propriety of claimant's punitive confinement, defendant opposes summary judgment on the ground claimant failed to support his motion with copies of the pleadings as required by CPLR 3212 (b).

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 (Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group, 88 NY2d 904 [1996]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853). 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 [3d Dept 2002], citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853; see Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [3d Dept 2005]).

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

January 2, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of motion, dated November 24, 2017;
  2. Affidavit in support, sworn to November 24, 2017, with Exhibits A - C;
  3. Affirmation in opposition, dated December 14, 2017, with Exhibit A.