New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BELL v. New York, #2001–010-010, Claim No. 103161, Motion No. M-62806


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied - factual issues.

Case Information

UID:
2001–010-010
Claimant(s):
CARLOS BELL
Claimant short name:
BELL
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103161
Motion number(s):
M-62806
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
CARLOS BELLPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 29, 2001
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for summary judgment:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits............................1

Attorney's Opposing Affirmation and Exhibit.........................................................2

Claimant seeks summary judgment on his claim that defendant negligently transferred his personal property from Sing Sing Correctional Facility to Fishkill Correctional Facility and lost his personal property valued at $310.00.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant a court directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). The Court of Appeals has repeatedly cautioned, "even in those negligence cases in which ‘the facts are conceded there is often a question as to whether the defendant or the plaintiff acted reasonably under the circumstances. This can rarely be decided as a matter of law'" (Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475 quoting Andre v Pomeroy, supra at 364; see, Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514).

Summary judgment is not warranted on the papers submitted as there are numerous issues of material fact which must await resolution at trial.

MOTION DENIED.


January 29, 2001
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims