Samuel CABASSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph SMITH, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Anthony Forte, Chief Medical Doctor, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Lester N. Wright, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Medical Officer, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Leonardo Portuondo, Superintendent, Maryann Genovese, Medical Doctor, Richard Wurzel, Katz, Doctor, Thomas Eagen, Director, Inmate Grievance Program, Defendants-Appellees, 477 F. App'x 848

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York is VACATED and REMANDED. Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel Cabassa appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hood, J.), granting

summary judgment to the appellees and dismissing Cabassa’s complaint. On March 9, 2011, this Court granted Cabas-sa’s motion for appointment of counsel with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant-Appellee Richard Wurzel, and dismissed the appeal with respect to his remaining claims against all other appellees.

On October 17, 2011, the New York State Attorney General’s Office (“NYAG”) informed the Court that it would not be filing a brief on Wurzel’s behalf despite the fact that it filed a notice of appearance on behalf of all defendants-appellees on appeal and acknowledged in a letter that it represented him below. The NYAG asserts that Wurzel was never served below, that it does not represent Wurzel, and that it mistakenly filed a notice of appearance on his behalf on appeal. As such, Cabassa’s appeal against Wurzel is currently unopposed.

In light of the representations made by the NYAG, we VACATE the judgment with respect to Wurzel and REMAND to the district court for a determination as to whether he was ever served and any appropriate remedies that may arise therefrom. The Court expresses its thanks to Cabassa’s pro bono counsel for their dedicated and highly professional assistance. We recommend that the district court consider whether to extend their appointment in subsequent proceedings.