Castle v. United States
Decision Date | 18 December 2017 |
Docket Number | 1:15-CV-0197 (GTS/TWD) |
Parties | MARTIN W. CASTLE, JR., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
MAINETTI, MAINETTI & O'CONNOR, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiff
Kingston, NY 12401
HON. GRANT C. JAQUITH
Acting United States Attorney for the N.D.N.Y.
JOSEPH E. O'CONNOR, ESQ.
MICHAEL E. KOLB, ESQ.
CATHLEEN B. CLARK, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
Currently before the Court, in this negligence action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") filed by Martin W. Castle, Jr., ("Plaintiff") against the United States of America ("Defendant"), are the following three motions: (1) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and (3) Plaintiff's cross-motion requesting the exclusion of certain evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403. (Dkt. Nos. 51, 57, 62.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's cross-motion is denied.
Generally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts two distinct claims. (Dkt. No. 40 [Am. Compl.].) First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable for personal injuries, property damages, and other injuries and damages that he sustained in a motor vehicle accident on June 6, 2014, which involved Plaintiff's motorcycle and a postal vehicle driven by an employee of Defendant ("First Claim"). (Id. at 2-5.) Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable for personal injuries, property damage, and other injuries and damages resulting from the June 6, 2014, motor vehicle accident because Defendant's employees were negligent, careless, and acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others when devising (and failing to change) a mail route that required USPS drivers to violate New York Veh. & Traff. Law ("VTL") § 1161 and act in a manner that is hazardous to other motorists, including Plaintiff ("Second Claim"). (Id. at 5-7.)
Before reciting the material facts related to Plaintiff's motion, the Court must address Defendant's failure to fully comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires a Statement of Material Facts that sets forth, in numbered paragraphs, each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine dispute, supported by a specific citation to the record where that fact is established. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). The opposing party must file a response to the Statement of Material Facts that mirrors that Statement by admitting and/or denying each of the movant's assertions in matching numbered paragraphs, supported by specific citations to the record where the factual issue arises. Id. If the opposing party does not specifically controvert any properly supported facts in the Statement of Material Facts, the Court shall deem them to be admitted. Id.
In responding to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts, Defendant did not file a statement with corresponding numbered paragraphs in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). (Dkt. No. 61, at 2-4 [Def.'s Opp'n Mem. of Law].)1 Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not submit a Statement of Material Facts with numbered paragraphs to which it could respond; however, Plaintiff did indeed submit numbered paragraphs containing asserted facts that Defendant was required to admit or deny. The only specific fact from Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts that Defendant explicitly denies is Paragraph 16, in which Defendant argues that, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Defendant did not intend to admit that Mr. Wachtel violated VTL Section 1161, citing to a correction it made to a typo in its response to Plaintiff's interrogatories. (Id. at 2-3; Dkt. No. 61, Attach. 1, at 2.) Consequently, with the exception of this single supported denial, Defendant's failure to admit or deny the remainder of the facts means that this Court deems those unaddressed facts that are supported by the record evidence as admitted.2
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Plaintiff in his Statement of Material Facts and either admitted based on similar statements made in Defendant's Statement of Material Facts or based on Defendant's failure to deny specific facts.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendant in his Statement of Material Facts and expressly admitted by Plaintiff in his response thereto or denied without appropriate record citations.
To continue reading
Request your trial