New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WALKER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-015-296, Claim No. 130179, Motion No. M-91434

Synopsis

Claimant's motion for summary judgment on his wrongful confinement claim was denied for failure to submit the pleadings in support of the motion.

Case information

UID: 2017-015-296
Claimant(s): WILLIAM MILO WALKER JR.
Claimant short name: WALKER
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 130179
Motion number(s): M-91434
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: William Milo Walker Jr., 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 3, 2018
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

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

The instant claim asserts the claimant was wrongfully confined to his cell for 24-hours per day from July 8, 2017 through July 28, 2017, and again from August 8, 2017 through August 24, 2017, while he was temporarily housed at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow) for a court appearance. According to the claimant, the confinement was pursuant to an unlawful policy, memorialized in a memorandum dated April 20, 2016, requiring "in-transit" inmates to be confined to their cells except for a one-hour period of daily recreation (claimant's Exhibit C). Claimant contends that the policy of confining such inmates without a hearing was unlawful and, in any event, the defendant violated its own policy when it deprived him of various privileges and authorized daily recreation periods.

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 summary judgment is denied.

January 3, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of motion sworn to November 19, 2017;
  2. Affidavit in support, sworn to November 19, 2017, with Exhibits A - C;
  3. Affirmation in opposition, dated December 14, 2017, with Exhibit A.