New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WELCH v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2021-015-076, Claim No. 133976, Motion No. M-96925


Case information

UID: 2021-015-076
Claimant(s): AARON WELCH
Claimant short name: WELCH
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 133976
Motion number(s): M-96925
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Aaron Welch, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: July 28, 2021
City: Saratoga Springs
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.

Following a prison disciplinary hearing in which claimant was found guilty of certain rule violations, a 30-day period of keeplock confinement was imposed, together with the loss of certain privileges. Claimant alleges the hearing officer's guilty determination was administratively reversed on September 11, 2019 and he now seeks damages for wrongful confinement arising from certain due process violations which allegedly occurred during the course of the hearing.

Claimant's motion, which is comprised of a notice of motion,(1) an Affidavit of Service and various exhibits, fails to meet the procedural and substantive requirements for summary judgment.

CPLR 3212 (b) states, in pertinent part, the following:

"A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts; it shall recite all the material facts; and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit."

The papers submitted in support of claimant's motion fail to include an affidavit setting forth the facts and legal basis for his summary judgment motion. Nor has he authenticated or otherwise described the exhibits submitted in support of the motion. As made clear by the Court of Appeals in Vega v Restani Constr. Corp. (18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]):

"On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed 'in the light most favorable to the non-moving party' (Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011]). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has 'tender[ed] sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact' (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) and then only if, upon the moving party's meeting of this burden, the non-moving party fails 'to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action' (id.)."

Claimant failed to meet his burden of establishing an entitlement to summary judgment. Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.

July 28, 2021

Saratoga Springs, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

1. Notice of motion sworn to June 17, 2021, with exhibits;

2. Affirmation in Opposition dated July 2, 2021.

1. Although defense counsel indicates that claimant failed to include in his motion a notice of motion, the document entitled "Motion for Summary Judgment" is the procedural equivalent inasmuch as it includes the information required by CPLR 2214 (a).