New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ESTEP v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-010-011, Claim No. 99332, Motion No. M-62807


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-010-011
Claimant(s):
HOWARD ESTEP
Claimant short name:
ESTEP
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99332
Motion number(s):
M-62807
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
HOWARD ESTEPPro 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 31, 2001
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's summary judgment motion :
Motion Requesting Summary Judgment and Exhibits..............................................1

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

Claimant's Response to Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition.............................3

Claimant seeks summary judgment on his claim that on June 5, 1998, while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, he slipped on the volleyball court, located in the facility's B-Block yard, and sustained injuries to his right foot and ankle. Claimant alleges defendant's negligent maintenance as the proximate cause of his injuries.

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, e.g., the size and the nature of the alleged defect; how long the alleged condition existed; the measures, if any, taken by defendant to address such condition; to what extent, if any, claimant may be responsible for his alleged injury.

MOTION DENIED.


January 31, 2001
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims