Opinion
# 2015-041-005 Claim No. 120843 Motion No. M-85744
01-13-2015
ASHTON DIXON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ASHTON DIXON Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to dismiss defenses and for summary judgment is denied where material factual issues requiring a trial are present.
Case information
UID: | 2015-041-005 |
Claimant(s): | ASHTON DIXON |
Claimant short name: | DIXON |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 120843 |
Motion number(s): | M-85744 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
Claimant's attorney: | ASHTON DIXON Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | January 13, 2015 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves to "dismiss Defendant's defense and requests an immediate trial on the issue of damages." Claimant further requests "Summary Judgment."
The claimant's motion papers allege that claimant was wrongfully confined in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) as a consequence of a guilty determination in a prison disciplinary proceeding held on September 1, 2011 at Clinton Correctional Facility. The disciplinary determination was administratively "reversed" on November 7, 2011, while claimant was confined to SHU at Orleans Correctional Facility (Orleans) after a transfer from Clinton. Claimant alleges that he was not immediately released from the Orleans SHU after he advised SHU officers of the administrative reversal and was, instead, told by the SHU officers that "they will release Claimant when they get a decision from Albany." Claimant seeks compensation for defendant's purported "negligent delay" in releasing him from SHU. Claimant was allegedly not released from SHU until December 13, 2011.
Defendant included in its answer defenses alleging that claimant's own culpable conduct caused or contributed to his damages, that the claim fails to state a cause of action and that defendant's actions were "privileged as being judicial, quasi-judicial or discretionary determinations . . . and therefore defendant is immune from any liability for such actions."
CPLR 3211 (b) provides as follows: "A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit."
Greco v Christoffersen (70 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]), explains that:
"[W]hen moving to dismiss or strike an affirmative defense, the [claimant] bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defense is 'without merit as a matter of law' (Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559, 559 [2d Dept 2006]). In reviewing a motion to dismiss an affirmative defense, [the] Court must liberally construe the pleadings in favor of the party asserting the defense and give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference."
The law requires that the allegations contained in the challenged defenses "must be accepted as true on a motion to strike" and where the "claimant failed to conclusively show that the defenses lacked merit" the motion is properly denied (Suarez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1243 [3d Dept 2009]).
"A motion for summary judgment should be entertained only after the moving party has established, by competent admissible evidence, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . If the movant meets this initial burden, the opposing party is required to submit evidence which raises a material issue of fact to preclude an award of summary judgment" (Ware v Baxter Health Care Corp., 25 AD3d 863, 864 [3d Dept 2006]; see Svoboda v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 31 AD3d 877 [3d Dept 2006]).
The record contains unstated and/or unclear material factual issues requiring a trial with respect to, among other things: The date claimant received notice that the administrative determination had been reversed; the date claimant allegedly notified SHU officers of the administrative reversal; and, the date that Orleans agents/employees received written notification of the administrative reversal through the administrative process.
In view of the foregoing factual issues, claimant has "failed to conclusively show that the defenses lacked merit" (Suarez, 60 AD3d at 1243).
Claimant's motion to strike the defenses in defendant's answer and for summary judgment is denied.
Defendant takes no position on claimant's request for an immediate trial.
Claimant's request for an immediate trial is granted and the Clerk of the Court of Claims is directed to schedule an immediate trial of the claim.
January 13, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed October 6, 2014;
2. Affidavit of Ashton Dixon, sworn to October 1, 2014, and annexed exhibits;
3. Letter of Michael T. Krenrich, dated October 14, 2014.