Opinion
# 2016-040-048 Claim No. 126379 Motion No. M-88400
07-08-2016
In the Matter of the Application of MAURICE HADDOCK v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Maurice Haddock, 93A9271 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's Motion to Strike the State's Answer and for Summary Judgment denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-048 |
| Claimant(s): | In the Matter of the Application of MAURICE HADDOCK |
| Claimant short name: | HADDOCK |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126379 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88400 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Maurice Haddock, 93A9271 |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 8, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's motion to strike Defendant's Answer and for summary judgment in his favor is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on July 1, 2015, alleges that, on March 7, 2015 at Eastern New York Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Eastern"), Claimant submitted a sample of his urine. It was alleged that the sample was positive for K2-2, and, as a result, he was issued a misbehavior report alleging the use of K2-2. A Tier III hearing commenced on March 19, 2015 and concluded on April 1, 2015. Claimant was found guilty of the charge and the penalty imposed was 30 days keeplock, and loss of phones, packages and commissary for the same period. On April 1, 2015, Claimant submitted an administrative appeal asserting that the urine sample was not handled in compliance with Title 7 of the New York Code Rules and Regulations 1020 (7 NYCRR § 1020), which recommends that the sample be stored frozen if it is not tested within a day. Claimant asserts that the sample was not tested until nine days after it was collected, on March 16, 2015, but was not stored frozen. Claimant also asserted he was denied relevant information to help his defense, that he was denied the results of the last sample to test positive for K2-2 prior to his sample. He also asserted that he was denied the results of all urine samples tested along with his on that day. He alleged that the Hearing Officer denied his requests at the hearing without an adequate reason.
He further asserted, upon his administrative appeal, that he was deprived a fair and impartial hearing officer. Claimant asserts that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter, "DOCCS") reversed the determination pursuant to 7 NYCRR § 254.8. He is seeking damages for being wrongly confined due to violations of 7 NYCRR § 254.8, and DOCCS' Directive 4937, and for violation of his right to have relevant information that was beneficial to his defense.
The State's Answer to the Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on July 27, 2015, denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the majority of the allegations contained in the Claim and denies one allegation and admits one allegation. The State also asserts 17 defenses in its Answer.
CPLR 3018 relates to responsive pleadings. Subdivision (a) refers to denials and states that "[a] party shall deny those statements known or believed by him to be untrue. He shall specify those statements as to the truth of which he lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief and this shall have the effect of a denial."
According to Professor Patrick M. Connors, when an allegation is denied, the allegation must be proved by the party pleading it (see Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3018:2, at 299). The burden is thus upon Claimant to establish the allegations that were denied in the State's answer.
A motion to dismiss defenses may be made on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit (CPLR 3211[b]). "[A]n affirmative defense should not be dismissed if there is any doubt as to its availability" (Thy Tran v Avis Rent A Car, 289 AD2d 731, 732 [3d Dept 2001]; see Nahrebeski v Molnar, 286 AD2d 891 [4th Dept 2001]). "It is well settled that '[o]n a motion to dismiss a defense pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), all of defendant's allegations must be deemed to be true and defendant is entitled to all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the submitted proof' " (Capital Tel. Co. v Motorola Communications and Elecs., 208 AD2d 1150, 1150 [3d Dept 1994], quoting Grunder v Recckio, 138 AD2d 923, 923 [4th Dept 1988]; Suarez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1243 [3d Dept 2009]). Moreover, the movant "[bears] the burden of demonstrating that those defenses [are] without merit as a matter of law" (Vita v New York Waste Services, LLC, 34 AD3d 559, 559 [2d Dept 2006]; see Suarez v State of New York, 14 Misc 3d 1230[A] [Ct Cl 2006], affd 60 AD3d 1243, supra).
The Court has reviewed the 17 affirmative defenses raised by Defendant. Claimant has not addressed each defense separately and asserts in only general and conclusory fashion that no defense is stated. Each defense must stand pending a factual determination of the issue raised in each defense. The portion of Claimant's motion to strike the Answer, therefore, is denied.
The Court now turns to the portion of the Motion that seeks summary judgment. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly and only where no material issue of fact is demonstrated in the papers related to the motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93, 94 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965], affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338 [1974]). In support of his motion, Claimant did not submit a copy of the Verified Answer. He only submitted a copy his Claim. The failure to include all the pleadings in support of a motion for summary judgment requires that the motion be denied, regardless of the merits of the motion (Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [3d Dept 2005]; Bonded Concrete, Inc. v Town of Saugerties, 3 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793 [2004]; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443 [2d Dept 1997]; CPLR 3212[b]).
CPLR 3212(b) also requires that the motion be supported by "available proof." "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 eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra at 853).
However, assuming, arguendo, that Claimant had supported his motion by including a copy of all the pleadings, the Court further finds that Claimant failed to make the required prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In Arteaga v State of New York (72 NY2d 212 [1988]), the Court of Appeals held that the State had absolute immunity from liability in the area of prison discipline when its employees act under the authority of and in full compliance with the statutes and regulations, and their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature. When a prison disciplinary hearing is not conducted in accordance with governing rules and regulations, the cloak of absolute immunity is removed and liability may result (Mabry v State of New York, UID No. 2008-029-064 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Dec. 22, 2008]; Brown v State of New York, UID No. 2008-010-038 [Ct Cl, Ruderman, J., Oct. 6, 2008]; Diaz v State of New York, UID No. 2006-036-008 [ Ct Cl, Schweitzer, J., June 20, 2006]; Mabry v State of New York, UID No. 2001-013-514 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 31, 2001]). Claimant has failed to submit any proof as to the reason the hearing officer's determination was reversed and expunged. Thus, he has failed to establish that Defendant violated the rules and regulations governing the disciplinary process. Claimant has failed to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, that portion of Claimant's motion for summary judgment in his favor is denied.
July 8, 2016
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's motion to strike Defendant's Answer and for summary judgment: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affidavit & Exhibits attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition 2 Claimant's Reply 3 Filed Papers: Claim, Verified Answer