New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FAVIA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-030, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-66365


Synopsis


Late claim motion alleging slip and fall in "defective" revolving door at 60 Centre Street courthouse in Manhattan was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-030
Claimant(s):
MARY G. FAVIA
Claimant short name:
FAVIA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-66365
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Mary G. Favia
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 10, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is the motion of Mary G. Favia for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). Ms. Favia alleges that on February 3, 2000, as she was going to the Pro Se office at the courthouse located at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan:
As I entered the building through the revolving door, someone was exiting in front of me. The door revolved at a very high speed striking me from behind. My left foot caught into the bottom of the door and I was thrown to the floor.[1]

Ordinarily, in determining whether to grant this motion, six factors enumerated in the Act must be considered: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) defendant would be substantially prejudiced; (4) claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable; and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.

In this case, however, a more fundamental issue must be addressed – whether this Court has jurisdiction over Favia's claim. Defendant asserts – and claimant does not dispute – that the 60 Centre Street courthouse is owned by the City of New York. See exhibits B and C to the March 3, 2003 affirmation of Grace A. Brannigan. While the provision of judicial facilities is essentially a local function, one part of such responsibility has been transferred to the State of New York: "commencing April first, nineteen hundred ninety-eight, the state shall be responsible for the cleaning of court facilities . . ." Judiciary Law §39-b.2. "[T]he term ‘cleaning of court facilities' shall mean those services and activities that are necessary to insure that the interior of each court facility is and remains a clean and healthful environment in which to transact the business of the unified court system. These services and activities include, but are not limited to: removal of trash and debris; maintenance of appropriate standards of hygiene; painting; pest control; and replacement of consumable items such as light bulbs, soap, toilet paper and paper towelling. They also shall include the making of minor repairs in accordance with rules of the chief judge." Judiciary Law §39-b.1(b).

Nothing in Favia's moving papers suggests that her accident is at all related to the State's §39-b.2 responsibilities. She only asserts that the door was revolving "at a very high speed . . . ," concluding that it was "defective." See pp. 2 and 3 of claimant's Verified Petition. In sum, no duty on the part of the State has been implicated and to the extent that Favia might have a claim against the City of New York, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the remaining arguments raised by defendant need not be reached.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-66365 be denied.

April 10, 2003
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The foregoing is from pp. 1-2 of claimant's Verified Petition; no proposed claim was submitted with Favia's papers.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with Verified Petition and exhibits A and B; and defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits A-D. Claimant's Verified Petition purported to attach exhibits notated as C and D, but such were not in fact attached.