Opinion
# 2011-010-042 Claim No. 119034 Motion No. M-80977
02-23-2012
JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Hudson River Psychiatric Center)
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to compel and motion for summary judgment denied. Case information
UID: 2011-010-042 Claimant(s): GREGORY JAMES JACKSON Claimant short name: JACKSON Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Hudson River Psychiatric Center) Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119034 Motion number(s): M-80977 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: Terry Jane Ruderman GREGORY JAMES JACKSON Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General for the State of New York By: Barry Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 23, 2012 City: White Plains Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to compel:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit, Verified Amended Motion and Exhibit.......................................................................................................................1
Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits..................................................2
The only remaining cause of action of Claim No. 119034 alleges that, due to defendant's negligent supervision, on April 4, 2009 while claimant was a patient at Hudson River Psychiatric Center, he was assaulted by a therapy aide employed by defendant (see Jackson v State of New York, Ct Cl, Apr. 28, 2011, Ruderman, J., Claim No. 119034, Motion Nos. M-79498, CM-79706).
To the extent that claimant's motion seeks to compel any further response from defendant regarding claimant's discovery demands, defendant has appropriately responded that the discovery requests were vague, over broad and irrelevant to the only remaining cause of action. Accordingly, that branch of claimant's application is DENIED
To the extent that claimant seeks summary judgment, it is noted that "the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" [citations omitted] (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Claimant has not met his burden regarding that branch of his application seeking summary judgment. Accordingly, that branch of claimant's application is DENIED as there are numerous issues of material fact warranting a trial.
February 23, 2012
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims