Opinion
# 2020-051-029 Claim No. 134170 Motion No. M-95944
12-09-2020
CHARLES BLANCHARD v. STATE OF NEW YORK
CHARLES BLANCHARD, PRO SE HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: MICHAEL T. KRENRICH, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Pro se claimant's motion for summary judgment on his wrongful confinement claim denied because he failed to attach the pleadings per CPLR 3212 (b). In addition, even if the Court were able to address the merits, the claimant did not establish as a matter of law his entitlement to summary judgment.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-051-029 |
| Claimant(s): | CHARLES BLANCHARD |
| Claimant short name: | BLANCHARD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134170 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95944 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DEBRA A. MARTIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | CHARLES BLANCHARD, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: MICHAEL T. KRENRICH, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 9, 2020 |
| City: | Rochester |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read on claimant's motion for summary judgment:
1. Notice of Motion with Affidavit and attached exhibits, filed September 28, 2020;
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, AAG with attached exhibits, dated October 27, 2020;
3. Filed papers: claim, verified answer and reply to answer.
Before the Court is pro se claimant's motion seeking summary judgment in his favor on his wrongful confinement claim. Claimant asserts that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) delayed by eight days to timely release him from the Upstate Correctional Facility's Special Housing Unit (SHU) after the completion of his 100 day sentence for his convictions for violent conduct in violation of R. 104.11, creating a disturbance in violation of R. 104.13, fighting in violation of 100.3, and disobeying a direct order in violation of 106.10. (claim, exhibit A.) The defendant opposed the motion on the ground that claimant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of attaching a copy of the pleadings to his motion papers.
Claimant's summary judgment motion must be denied because he has failed to comply with the procedural requirements in making such a motion. CPLR 3212 (b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by copies of the pleadings (S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341 [1974]). In support of his motion, claimant did not attach a copy of either his claim or the defendant's answer. "The failure to include pleadings in support of a motion for summary judgment requires that the motion be denied, regardless of the merits of the motion." (Malik v State of New York, UID No. 2008-040-030 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., May 13, 2008][internal citations omitted].)
The Court further notes that it has long been held that logistical difficulties in transferring inmates to other facilities is justification for not timely restoring inmates' privileges after a disciplinary detention has ended. (see Applegate v State of New York, UID No. 2002-011-109 [Ct Cl, McNamara, J., July 8, 2002].) Here, after claimant's disciplinary confinement to SHU ended, he was transferred from Upstate Correctional Facility to Attica Correctional Facility. It is possible that the eight additional days claimant allegedly overstayed in SHU may have been justified and not actionable. Accordingly, claimant has not demonstrated that there are no material facts at issue and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ORDERED, claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-95944) is denied without prejudice.
December 9, 2020
Rochester, New York
DEBRA A. MARTIN
Judge of the Court of Claims