New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GILL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-005-519, Claim No. 106970, Motion No. M-66328


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-005-519
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY G. GILL
Claimant short name:
GILL
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106970
Motion number(s):
M-66328
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
Anthony G. Gill,Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 29, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

On March 12, 2003, the following papers, numbered 1 to 5, were read on motion by Claimant for summary judgment:

1, 2 Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Exhibits Annexed

3, 4 Opposing Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits Annexed

5, 6 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is denied.

In this motion, Claimant seeks summary judgment with respect to his claim which sounds in bailment for the alleged loss of his personal property. His claim was filed on November 21, 2002, and the Defendant's answer was filed on January 2, 2003.

The grounds for summary judgment rely upon the Claimant's belief that there is no defense to his cause of action or that the State's defense has no merit.

Claimant describes in significant detail his travel to another facility for a deposition and his transfer to another facility, and further supplies copies of receipts ostensibly documenting the purchase of the purportedly missing items.

The Defendant opposes summary judgment on the ground that the motion is not supported by conclusive factual evidence, noting that Claimant included a discovery demand with the instant motion papers. More significantly, the Defendant raises pertinent and relevant questions of fact that must be resolved before any determination on liability and or valuation of damages may be ascertained by the Court. Specifically, Defendant questions whether there is an actual loss of any personal property, and in support of such contention, adds the sworn affidavit of Laurence Cheney, Liaison Officer at Auburn Correctional Facility. Officer Cheney affirms under penalty of perjury that he has compared the personal property inventory Form I-64 completed by Auburn Correctional Facility authorities on February 21, 2002 (Claimant's sending facility) and the I-64 Form completed on March 8, 2002 by authorities at Elmira Correctional Facility (Claimant's receiving facility), and "there is no discrepancy which would indicate the losses alleged by the Claimant."

While Claimant has provided an organized set of papers, the Defendant has raised essential questions of fact that must be resolved at trial before any determination of liability may be made. Accordingly, the motion is denied, and this matter will be scheduled for trial in due course, at which Claimant may present his evidence purporting to establish the State's liability and the value of his lost property, if any.


May 29, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims