Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as he failed to support his motion with copies of the pleadings and proof in admissible form.
|Claimant short name:||JOHNSON|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Janaiod Johnson, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||March 9, 2020|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, proceeding pro se, moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.
Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, seeks damages for a 30-day period of wrongful confinement to his cell. Claimant alleges that although no disciplinary charges had been brought against him, he was confined to his cell on keeplock status on November 13, 2017 and was not released until December 12, 2017.
"To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his favor (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]), and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562  [inner quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 25 NY3d 1102 ; Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 ; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 ). Only where the movant has made this showing does the burden shift to the opposing party "to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324).
CPLR 3212 specifically requires a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings. Here, claimant's motion for summary judgment failed to include a copy of the pleadings thereby warranting denial of the motion on this basis alone. Nor was any documentary proof in admissible form submitted in support of the motion. Accordingly, claimant failed to meet his burden of showing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Based on the foregoing, claimant's motion is denied.
March 9, 2020
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims