New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SAMPOGNA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-010-010, Claim No. 104213, Motion Nos. M-66162, CM-66371


Synopsis


Claimant's motion and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment are denied as there are material issues of fact which must be resolved at trial

Case Information

UID:
2003-010-010
Claimant(s):
ALISSA ROSE SAMPOGNA
Claimant short name:
SAMPOGNA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104213
Motion number(s):
M-66162
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-66371
Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
JOHN C. GUTTRIDGE, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: John Healey, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 28, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit, Memorandum of Law, Expert's Affidavit and Exhibits................................................................................................1

Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits..............2

Claimant's Reply Affidavit, Attorney's Supporting Reply Affirmation and Exhibit..3

Attorney's Reply Affirmation...................................................................................4

Claimant seeks summary judgment on the issue of liability and defendant cross-moves for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claim. The claim arises out of an incident that occurred on February 27, 2001 when claimant, a matriculated student at the State University of New York, Purchase, was injured during a basic sculpture class. Claimant was given a piece of sheet metal to make a sculpture and instructed on the use of the power roller. According to claimant, her sweatshirt got caught in the power roller and subsequently her breasts became stuck between the metal rollers of the machine. Claimant could not reach the reverse switch and had to be freed from the machine by another classmate. Claimant contends that defendant was negligent in its failure to effectively instruct and supervise claimant in her use of the machine and that the machine was not equipped with a safety guard, nor was claimant provided with any safety equipment. Defendant opposes claimant's motion and cross-moves for summary judgment noting that claimant was admittedly instructed on the use of the power roller and specifically told not to wear loose clothing during operation of the machine.

It is well established that negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by summary judgment (see Chahales v Garber, 195 AD2d 585 [summary judgment properly denied where there are triable issues of fact as to contributory negligence]). In the instant case, there are genuine issues of material fact including, but not limited to, the operation of the machine, the instructions provided to claimant, and claimant's own conduct regarding her role in the happening of the accident. Accordingly, a trial is necessary to resolve these issues of fact and the motion and cross-motion are DENIED (see Sammis v Nassau/Suffolk Football League, 95 NY2d 809; Miller v Long Is. Light. Co., 166 AD2d 564).


March 28, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims