Scott v. State

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Synopsis

Claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's affirmative defenses was denied.

Case information

Defendant(s):

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

Judge:

Signature date:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

UID:	2019-015-111
Claimant(s):	RANDOLPH SCOTT, 15 B 2127
Claimant short name:	SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :
		STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
		130117
Motion number(s):	M-93183
Cross-motion number(s):
		FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:	Randolph Scott, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:	Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
		February 1, 2019
City:	Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Decision

Claimant, proceeding pro se, moves to dismiss defendant's defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b).

Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), alleges he was deprived of a cane and other accommodations for his physical disabilities while he was an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

CPLR 3211 (b) permits a party to "move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit." To succeed on a motion to dismiss defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b), the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the defenses lack merit as a matter of law (Suarez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1243 [3d Dept 2009]; Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559 [2d Dept 2006]; Santilli v Allstate Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 1031 [4th Dept 2005]). For purposes of such a motion, "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" (Grunder v Recckio, 138 AD2d 923 [4th Dept 1988]). "If there is doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed" (Pellegrino v Millard Fillmore Hosp., 140 AD2d 954, 955 [4th Dept 1988] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted])

In support of his motion to dismiss defenses, claimant argues that he cannot be responsible for his own injuries because he is a "ward" of the State without the "ability to function without the condition of control imposed" (claimant's affidavit, ¶ 2). Defendant asserted eight affirmative defenses in its answer, including the comparative negligence or culpable conduct of the claimant. To the extent claimant appears to argue that he cannot be held responsible for his own injuries or any portion thereof based on his status as an inmate of the DOCCS, he is incorrect. While the special circumstances that confront an incarcerated inmate should be considered in assessing whether the inmate was comparatively negligent, it is settled law that "an inmate's comparative negligence will reduce his or her recovery accordingly" (Bernard v State of New York, 34 AD3d 1065, 1068 [3d Dept 2006]). Claimant's status as an inmate therefore provides no basis for dismissing the defense of comparative negligence and no other ground for dismissing defendant's affirmative defenses has been articulated.

Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.

February 1, 2019

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion dated November 5, 2018;
2. Affidavit sworn to November 21, 2018;
3. Affirmation in Opposition dated December 12, 2018;
4. Reply to opposition sworn to December 24, 2018.