Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained on October 3, 2000,
during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. This claim was
heard in a unified trial.
Claimant testified that on October 3, 2000 at approximately 12:30 to 1:00 p.m.,
he observed that the locking mechanism on his bed was faulty and the headboard
was shaking. He maintains that he advised a correction officer that the bed was
defective and was told that it could not be replaced at that time of day.
Despite claimant's awareness of the alleged defect, he got into the bed and it
collapsed with the headboard falling down on claimant's head. No report
documenting this incident was offered into evidence.
Claimant sought medical care at 2:30 p.m. and an x-ray was taken which revealed
a normal alignment, no compression fractures and no focal bony lesions. No
significant abnormalities were noted. Follow-up x-rays taken on November 14,
200 were similarly unremarkable.
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
see 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 has not established that defendant failed to remedy the condition
within a reasonable period of time; therefore there can be no finding of
negligence against the State. Rather, the evidence established that, despite
claimant's awareness of the defect, he climbed into the bed instead of waiting a
reasonable amount of time for defendant to address the problem. Under these
circumstances, the Court finds that claimant failed to use ordinary care and
must take responsibility for his own negligence (see Carter v State of
, 194 AD2d 967).
Defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is now
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 103747.