Lewis v Fischer

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Lewis v Fischer 2012 NY Slip Op 31258(U) May 15, 2012 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 7681-11 Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY MELVIN C. LEWIS, Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER INDEX NO. 7681-11 RJI NO. 01-12-105740 -against- BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; AND HIS SUBORDINATES MARVEEN E. BOLL; KENNETH S. PERLMAN; KAREN BELLAMY; WILLIAM R. LAPE; CAPTAIN JAMES RAYMOND; CAPTAIN SHANLEY; SERGEANT S. LAQUA Y; SERGEANT SLAVEN; SERGEANT STALEY; ERIC GUTWEIN; NORMAN BEZIO; DAVID ROCK; DON UHLER; R. LECLERC; SHERRIE KING; J. OROP ALLO; M. LIRA; T. QUINN; A. LASHWAY,] Defendants. Supreme Court Albany County All Purpose Term, March 26, 2012 Assigned to Justice Joseph C. Teresi APPEARANCES: Melvin C. Lewis, # OOB 1401 Pro Se Plaintiff 309 Bare Hill Road PO Box 2000 Malone, New York 12953 Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq. Attorney General of the State of New York Attorneys for Defendants (Douglas Goglia, Esq., AAG) The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 To the extent that the caption of this Court's Decision and Order, dated March 15,2012, did not mirror the Complaint's caption, such Decision and Order is amended nunc pro tunc. I [* 2] TERESI, J.: Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Summons and Complaint on February 1, 2012.2 Prior to answering, Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), while also arguing for dismissal under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. In addition, Defendants seek revocation of Plaintiffs poor person status and attorney's fees. Plaintiff opposes the motion, makes four motions and has served an amended complaint as ofright. (CPLR §3025[a]; Johnson v Spence, 286 AD2d 481 [2d Dept 2001]). At the Defendants' specific request, this Court will apply their motion to dismiss to the superceding amended complaint. (Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 AD2d 35 [1st Dept 1998]; Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. v JPMorgan Chase & Co., 92 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2012]). On this record, while Plaintiffs motions are all procedurally defective, Defendants established their entitlement to dismissal. Considering Plaintiffs motions first, CPLR §2214(b) states that "[a] notice of motion and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days before the time at which the motion is noticed to be heard." "The failure to give requisite notice of motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion." (Burstin v Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 98 AD2d 928, 928 [3d Dept 1983]; Zaidi v New York Bldg. Contractors, Ltd., 61 AD3d 747 [2d Dept 2009]). Here, Plaintiff failed to specify when any of his motions were "noticed to be heard." As such, Plaintiff failed to give requisite notice of his motions, depriving this Court of jurisdiction over them and requiring they be denied. As such, each of Plaintiff s motions will be considered as opposition to 2 Plaintiff also filed a copy of his Summons and Complaint on December 13,2011. 2 [* 3] Defendants' motion. Turning to Defendants' res judicata motion to dismiss, "the doctrine of res judicata bars all other claims arising out of the same transaction ... even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy." (Graziano v Evans, 90 AD3d 1367, 1370 [3d Dept 2011] Iv to appeal denied, _ NY3d _ [2012], quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 941 NYS2d 350 [3d Dept 2012]). Here, the transactions alleged in Plaintiff's amended complaint arise from his unauthorized possession and use of Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") materials. Specifically, he alleges that he wrongly received three misbehavior reports because of his UCC materials. He alleges multiple rights violations due to his being found guilty at the related tier III hearings, and his placement in the Special Housing Unit. Plaintiff additionally alleged that his rights were violated when his grievance challenging Respondent's UCC regulations was denied. Plaintiff previously litigated these exact same transactions in an Article 78 proceeding. (Lewis v Lape, 90 AD3d 1259 [3d Dept 2011] Iv to appeal denied, _NY3d_ [2012][stating that this Plaintiff, "a prison inmate, was charged in three misbehavior reports with violating various prison disciplinary rules, several of which relate to the unauthorized possession of Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter UCC) materials. Following three tier III disciplinary hearings, petitioner was found guilty of all charges, and those determinations were thereafter upheld upon administrative review. Petitioner also filed a grievance challenging the departmental regulations pertaining to UCC materials, which was ultimately denied by the Central Office Review Committee. He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging all four determinations."]). Because the Appellate Division - Third Department has already considered 3 [* 4] and rejected the Plaintiff's DCC challenge, his disciplinary hearing dispositions and his grievance, the doctrine of res judicata bars the amended complaint's claims. (Id.; Graziano v Evans, supra). Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted and this matter is dismissed. In light ofthe foregoing, Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiffs poor person status is denied as moot and, in an exercise of discretion, Defendants' motion for attorney's fees is denied. This Decision and Order is being returned to the attorneys for the Defendants. A copy of this Decision and Order and all other original papers submitted on this motion are being delivered to the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR §2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provision of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. So Ordered. Dated: Albany, New York May /~2012 4 [* 5] PAPERS CONSIDERED: 1. Notice of Motion, dated April 4, 2012; Affirmation of Douglas Goglia, dated April 4, 2012, with attached Exhibits A-C and unattached unnumbered exhibits; 2. Letter of Douglas Goglia, dated April 10,2012, with attached Exhibits A-D; 3. Reply Affirmation of Douglas Goglia, dated April 12,2012, with attached Exhibits A-E; 4. "Motion Seeking Permission to Amend Complaint" of Melvin Lewis, dated February 27, 2012. 5. "Motion Seeking Clarification of Decision and Order" of Melvin Lewis, dated March 21, 2012. 6. "Notice of Motion of Rebuttal Defendant's Affirmation and Memorandum of Law Notice of Motion," undated; Affidavit of Melvin Lewis, dated April 8, 2012, with attached Exhibit A; 7. "Second Notice of Motion of Rebuttal and Objection to Defendant's Memorandum of Law," undated; Affidavit of Melvin Lewis, dated April 20, 2012. J 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.