Opinion
# 2011-016-045 Claim No. 117462 Motion No. M-79848
09-26-2011
RALPH OYAGUE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis Case information
UID: 2011-016-045 Claimant(s): RALPH OYAGUE Claimant short name: OYAGUE Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 117462 Motion number(s): M-79848 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: Alan C. Marin Claimant's attorney: Ralph Oyague, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: James E. Shoemaker, AAG Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 26, 2011 City: New York Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant Ralph Oyague moves for an order "permitting [him] to file a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate this action . . ." In his underlying claim, Mr. Oyague alleges that surgery was negligently performed on his knee after he was injured while running a race at Sullivan Correctional Facility.
"Arbitration is essentially a creature of contract, a contract in which the parties themselves charter a private tribunal for the resolution of their disputes." Matter of Astoria Med. Group (Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York), 11 NY2d 128, 132-33 (1962). Aside from an agreement to arbitrate, some statutes provide for compulsory arbitration, such as certain controversies under the Insurance Law and the Workers' Compensation Law. Claimant has pointed to no agreement to arbitrate between him and the State, nor has he identified any statute which would compel arbitration in this case.
Claimant argues that "[s]ince a contract was made in both surgeries giving permission for the State to treat [his] knee, this claim . . . is arbitrable." It is unlikely that defendant's medical treatment of claimant constituted a contract. However, even assuming there was some sort of contract to treat claimant, that is clearly distinguishable from an agreement to arbitrate.
In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions, IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-79848 be denied.
The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support; defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits A through D; and claimant's "Response to Defendant's Opposition" with exhibits A through D.
--------
September 26, 2011
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims