New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MANOLIOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-562, Claim No. 101223, Motion No. M-61547


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim is denied

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-562
Claimant(s):
FOTIOS MANOLIOS
Claimant short name:
MANOLIOS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101223
Motion number(s):
M-61547
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Jeffrey Rosenblueth, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Michael W. Friedman, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 17, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision


Defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim based on the decision in Williams v State of New York, 90 AD2d 861. On April 28, 1999, Claimant was arrested by officers of the New York City Police Department and charged with violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law §§509 and 511. Claimant's license had been erroneously suspended in November 1997 for failing to file an accident report. Sometime after receiving notification of the suspension Claimant contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and after faxing a copy of the report to them, was told that "everything would be O.K.". The suspension was not removed until after his arrest.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must tender evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to justify the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor whereupon the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to raise a triable issue of fact (Hackstadt v. Hackstadt, 194 AD2d 908).

As alleged in the claim the DMV was negligent in failing to maintain accurate records with respect to the status of Claimant's license and in failing to remove an erroneous suspension of his license. The cause of action though labeled one for negligence is in reality one for negligent misrepresentation which requires a showing that Claimant has relied to his detriment on information given to him (Williams v State of New York, 90 AD2d 861, 862). Defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because the police, and not Claimant, relied on the misrepresentation that his license was under suspension. Claimant, however, also relied to his detriment on information from the DMV when he was told that the suspension would be removed and he took no further action to resolve the problem. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

August 17, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment dated April 13, 2000.
2. Affirmation in Support of Motion of Michael W. Friedman, Esq., dated April 13, 2000.
3. Affirmation in Opposition of Jeffrey Rosenblueth, Esq. dated May 11, 2000.
4. Reply Affirmation of Michael W. Friedman, Esq., dated May 24, 2000 with exhibits annexed.
5. Sur-Reply of Jeffrey Rosenblueth, Esq., dated July 14, 2000.