Opinion
# 2011-029-048 Claim No. 119213 Motion No. M-80204
10-20-2011
DELEON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Synopsis
Inmate claimant's motion for summary judgment or to strike affirmative defenses is denied based on the presence of issues of fact. Case information
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦UID: ¦2011-029-048 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant(s): ¦ISIDORO DELEON ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant short name: ¦DELEON ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (claimant name) : ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Defendant(s): ¦THE STATE OF NEW YORK ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (defendant name) : ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party claimant(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claim number(s): ¦119213 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Motion number(s): ¦M-80204 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Cross-motion number(s): ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Judge: ¦STEPHEN J. MIGNANO ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant's attorney: ¦ISIDORO DELEON, pro se ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL ¦ ¦Defendant's attorney: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦By: Stephen J. Maher, Assistant Attorney ¦ ¦ ¦General ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant's ¦ ¦ ¦attorney: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Signature date: ¦October 20, 2011 ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦City: ¦White Plains ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Comments: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Official citation: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Appellate results: ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦See also (multicaptioned case) ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Decision
Claimant, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, moves for summary judgment in this claim, in which he seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly arising from a December 14, 2009 incident in which correction officers negligently or intentionally applied handcuffs too tight for a period of five hours for an outside medical trip and from the alleged negligent failure of defendant's employees to provide adequate and proper medical care for injuries to his wrists. Claimant also requests that defendant's affirmative defenses be stricken from the answer. Defendant opposes the motion. The motion must be denied in all respects. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that is "rarely granted in negligence cases since the very question of whether a defendant's conduct amounts to negligence is inherently a question for the trier of fact in all but the most egregious instances" (Johannsdottir v Kohn, 90 AD2d 842; see Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). "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. On the other hand, to defeat a motion for summary judgment the opposing party must 'show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact' (CPLR 3212, subd [b])" (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067).
Claimant's submission does not demonstrate the absence of factual issues or his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is merely a compendium of his allegations of fact and his view of the legal conclusions to be drawn from those alleged facts. Even had claimant submitted proof that he was injured as the result of the application of handcuffs, whether any employee of defendant acted improperly or negligently is not something that could in any event be determined from exhibits, nor could the adequacy of the medical treatment he received. That certain facts and conclusions are apparent and obvious to claimant is irrelevant and insufficient. What is required is proof of actionable conduct on the part of defendant's employees causing damage to claimant - evidence, not allegations - something completely lacking from the papers before the court.
As contended by defendant, correction officers are required to apply handcuffs to inmates as part of their routine duties. A conclusion that such was done either intentionally with intent to injure or negligently in disregard of the risk of injury requires a trial where all of the surrounding circumstances can be explored. Whether the medical care provided to an inmate was adequate and proper is something that can rarely if ever be determined on a summary judgment motion.
As to the affirmative defenses alleged in the answer, defendant is correct in noting that they are merely a statement of defendant's position in the litigation and there is no basis to strike them absent proof that they are without merit as a matter of law (Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559), proof that is totally lacking here.
Accordingly, the motion is denied in all respects.
October 20, 2011
White Plains, New York
STEPHEN J. MIGNANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit, Memorandum of Law and Exhibits
Affirmation in Opposition
Reply Affidavit