Opinion
# 2016-038-564 Claim No. 119919 Claim No. 123261 Claim No. 123262 Claim No. 123263 Claim No. 123264 Claim No. 123325 Claim No. 125184 Motion No. M-88659
10-03-2016
DEANDRE WILLIAMS 99A0052 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino and Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorneys General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion seeking immediate scheduling of the trials of seven pending claims is denied as he has not demonstrated that the interests of justice will be served by giving all of his claims a scheduling preference over pending claims of other claimants.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-564 |
| Claimant(s): | DEANDRE WILLIAMS 99A0052 |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 119919, 123261, 123262, 123263, 123264, 123325, 125184 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88659 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino and Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorneys General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 3, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual who is incarcerated in a State correctional facility, has filed numerous claims against the State seeking money damages arising from a variety of allegedly negligent acts of defendant's employees. Claimant makes the instant motion seeking a trial preference for all of his claims. Defendant has submitted correspondence stating that it takes no position on the motion.
This correspondence appears to supercede the affirmation in opposition of Anthony Rotondi, AAG to that part of the motion that seeks relief on claim number 118586 which, as discussed below, has been dismissed.
Claimant requests that all of his pending claims "that are trial ready be scheduled for a trial within 90 days" (Williams Correspondence, dated March 31, 2016). Claimant's unsworn submission asserts that he is severely visually impaired and that he "can barely see" and requests that trials on his claims be scheduled immediately "before [he] lose[s] sight in [his] left eye" (id.). Claimant's submission includes an ophthalmological record that indicates that claimant has a "severe visual impairment" (id. [11/10/15 Eye Record]), and correspondence from a paralegal at Prisoner Legal Services to the Superintendent at Five Point Correctional Facility requesting a reasonable accommodation, i.e. a pair of tinted sunglasses, due to claimant having "no vision" in his right eye and "very limited vision" in his left eye (see id. [Correspondence of Robert Meek, dated 2/8/16]).
Claimant's papers in support of his motion request a trial preference for "any & all claims" pending before the Court (see Williams Correspondence, dated March 31, 2016). At the time the motion was made, claimant had nine pending claims that accrued at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF), and several others that accrued at other State correctional facilities. The Clerk's Office assigned motion number M-88659 to the undersigned to address the nine claims that accrued at Upstate CF. Two of the claims to which this motion is addressed had already been tried with decisions pending (Claim numbers 116635 and 118586). Accordingly, this decision will not further address those two claims, and claimant's motion will be denied as moot with respect to those two claims.
Claimant's submission does not state an expressly statutory basis for his request, but it is plain that he is seeking a trial preference in the "interests of justice" (CPLR 3403 [a][3]). "A trial preference in the interest of justice should only be granted where circumstances are sufficiently unusual and extreme to justify the extraordinary privilege, since the granting of a preference represents a favoring of one case over another" (LaPorta v Fretto Enters, Inc., 100 AD2d 713, 713 [3d Dept 1984]). Further, "[e]ach case must essentially be decided on its own facts rather than by adherence to a rigid set of prescribed rules" (id.), and "[w]hether the interests of justice will be served by the granting of a preference rests within the discretion of [the Court]" (Nold v City of Troy, 94 AD2d 930, 930 [3d Dept 1983]).
Claimant's unsworn submission demonstrates that he is severely visually impaired in both eyes, but it does not establish that he is in danger of losing further vision in his left eye, or that any such danger is imminent (see Bernard v Hyman, 155 AD2d 403, 403 [2d Dept 1989] [trial preference in interests of justice improvidently granted where medical report did not indicate imminent danger of plaintiff's death]). Moreover, claimant has not elucidated in his motion papers any further difficulties that he would encounter if the claims are not given a trial preference. While the Court is not unsympathetic to claimant, his submission on this motion does not demonstrate his entitlement to the extraordinary privilege of a trial preference for the seven claims that accrued at Upstate CF that remain pending. Thus, claimant's motion will not be granted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M-88659 is DENIED.
October 3, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Claim number 119919, filed June 2, 2011; (2) Verified Answer, filed June 10, 2011; (3) Claim number 123261, filed September 25, 2013; (4) Verified Answer, filed October 4, 2013; (5) Claim number 123262, filed September 25, 2013; (6) Verified Answer, filed September 17, 2013; (7) Claim number 123263, filed September 25, 2013; (8) Verified Answer, filed September 17, 2013; (9) Claim number 123264, filed September 25, 2013; (10) Verified Answer, filed October 4, 2013; (11) Claim number 123325, filed October 9, 2013; (12) Verified Answer, filed October 4, 2013; (13) Claim number 125184, filed October 29, 2014; (14) Verified Answer, filed December 8, 2014; (15) Notice of Motion, dated May 13, 2016; (16) Correspondence of DeAndre Williams, dated March 31, 2016, with exhibits; (17) Affirmation in Opposition of Anthony Rotondi, AAG (Claim No. 118586), dated June 8, 2016; (18) Correspondence of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, dated June 13, 2016.