Claimant, an inmate proceeding
, seeks damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained
as a result of a fall in the Psychiatric Satellite Unit ("PSU") at Sing Sing
Claimant testified that, on May 16, 1995 at approximately 7:00 p.m., he was
returning from the shower to PSU when, upon entering the dormitory, he slipped
and fell, cutting his hand on the sharp edge of a bed frame. Claimant was
unable to articulate what, if anything, triggered his fall.
Correction Officer Bruce Dunn, who worked in the PSU for approximately twelve
years, testified that during his years of employment he had not encountered any
injury of the type described by claimant and that it would be very difficult for
an injury to occur in such manner.
It is well established that the State has a duty to maintain its facilities in
a reasonably safe condition (
Preston v State of New York
, 59 NY2d 997). With respect to the safety of
persons on its property, the duty of the State is one of reasonable care under
the circumstances (see Miller v State of New York
,62 NY2d 506,
512; Preston v State of New York
; Basso v Miller
NY2d 233, 241). The State, however, is not an insurer of the safety of its
inmates and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an
, Killeen v State of New York
, 66 NY2d 850; Condon
v State of New York
, 193 AD2d 874).
In order to prevail on his claim, claimant must show: the existence of a
foreseeably dangerous condition; that the State created the condition or had
either actual or constructive notice of the condition; that the State failed to
remedy the condition within a reasonable time; that such condition was the
proximate cause of claimant's accident; and that claimant sustained damages
, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History
, 67 NY2d 836;
Ligon v Waldbaum Inc.
, 234 AD2d 347; Mercer v City of NewYork
AD2d 688, affd
88 NY2d 955).
In the instant case, claimant failed to adequately describe the events leading
to his fall. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence presented was
insufficient to establish that defendant had either actual or constructive
notice of a foreseeably dangerous condition and failed to remedy it within a
reasonable time. Accordingly, claimant has failed to satisfy his burden of
proof and this claim is dismissed.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 91848