Pro se Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment denied.
|Claimant short name:||GREEN|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY|
|Claimant's attorney:||Russell Green, 16-R-2001, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||July 6, 2017|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's Motion for summary judgment is denied.
This Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on February 9, 2017, alleges that, on November 29, 2016, Claimant returned to Bare Hill Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Bare Hill") following surgery, and medical staff failed to provide him with prescribed medication. Claimant returned to the medical facility on December 1, 2016 with a fever and other symptoms, was seen by a doctor, and antibiotics were prescribed. Later that evening, Claimant alleges that he was sent to the Adirondack Medical Center Emergency Room and was then admitted to that hospital. It is alleged that the State was negligent in providing medical care.
In making this Motion, Claimant asserts that it is made pursuant to "206.14 URCC." The Court presumes that Claimant is referring to the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims § 206.14. However, this section pertains to the exchange of medical reports in personal injury and wrongful death actions. As Claimant requests in his Motion papers that the Court "Grant this Claim," the Court considers the motion to be one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly and only where no material issue of fact is demonstrated in the papers related to the motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965], affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338 ). In support of his Motion, Claimant did not submit a copy of the Claim or the Verified Answer. The failure to include all the pleadings in support of a motion for summary judgment requires that the motion be denied, regardless of the merits of the motion (Davis v State of New York, _AD3d_ [3d Dept 2017], 2017 WL 2674276; Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [3d Dept 2005]; Bonded Concrete, Inc. v Town of Saugerties, 3 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793 ; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443 [2d Dept 1997]; CPLR 3212[b]).
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Claimant's Motion for summary judgment in his favor is denied.
July 6, 2017
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment:
Notice of Motion, and Exhibit attached 1
Affirmation in Opposition 2
Filed Papers: Claim, Answer