New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SANDSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-034-546, Claim No. 108842, Motion No. M-68278


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-034-546
Claimant(s):
ANDREW SANDSON
Claimant short name:
SANDSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108842
Motion number(s):
M-68278
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
MICHAEL E. HUDSON
Claimant's attorney:
ANDREW SANDSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 2, 2004
City:
Buffalo
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant filed this motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 seeking summary judgment in his favor. The Court hereby denies the motion.

The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:

1. Claim, verified January 21, 2004, filed January 29, 2004, with attached exhibits;

2. Answer, verified February 13, 2004, filed February 18, 2004;

3. Notice of Motion dated March 22, 2004, filed April 1, 2004;

4. Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of Andrew Sandson, sworn to March 22, 2004, with attached exhibits;

5. Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment of Thomas G. Ramsay, affirmed April 28, 2004, with attached exhibits.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, one which should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact (Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231[1978]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]), with issue-finding rather than issue-determination the focus of the Court in reviewing the submissions (Sillman, 3 NY2d at 404). To obtain such disfavored relief a movant must establish his cause of action or defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment" in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]), and must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). Conversely, once a movant has satisfied that burden the party opposing the motion would have the burden of showing facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact, or demonstrate an acceptable excuse for the inability to tender such proof in admissible form (CPLR 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals, 46 NY2d at 1067-1068; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Claimant, while an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, alleged that Defendant negligently lost his property after transferring him to a Special Housing Unit on September 29, 2003. He subsequently pursued his institutional administrative remedies, then filed and served this Claim. Following joinder of the issue on February 18, 2004, Claimant filed this motion for summary judgment. Defendant has opposed the motion, and has submitted contradictory proof in evidentiary form that all of Claimant's items were in fact packed and transferred with him to the Special Housing Unit. Therefore, a triable issue of fact exists requiring denial of summary judgment.

Claimant's request for oral argument is denied. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 206.9 (c), such applications rest within the discretion of the Court. In this matter oral argument would not assist the Court in making its determination.

Based upon the above, it is

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

June 2, 2004
Buffalo, New York

HON. MICHAEL E. HUDSON
Judge of the Court of Claims