New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LATCHMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-030-909, Claim No. 109157, Motion Nos. M-69599, CM-69725


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-030-909
Claimant(s):
QUEMEENA LATCHMAN, by WANDA LATCHMAN, Temporary Guardian, Pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law
Claimant short name:
LATCHMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109157
Motion number(s):
M-69599
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-69725
Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
Jacoby & Meyers, LLPby Andrew L. Spitz, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney Generalby Gail P. Pierce Siponen, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 7, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The court read and considered the following papers on defendant's motion for summary judgment and claimant's cross motion for a voluntary discontinuance: Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits, Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits; Affirmation in Partial Opposition to Cross-Motion.

This claim arises from the alleged failure to properly supervise a patient at the East Harlem Community Improvement Center, resulting in her being struck by a motor vehicle.

The motion for summary judgment is based on two grounds: (1) that the named claimant lacks legal standing and (2) that the subject facility is owned and operated by a private corporation, not a state agency, and that the State of New York therefore cannot be liable for the subject incident.

With respect to the first issue, claimant advises, for the first time, that she was actually appointed temporary guardian with the authority to maintain this action, and the motion is denied to the extent that it is based on the standing issue.

With respect to the merits, claimant accepts defendant's proof as to the ownership of the facility and notes that she will pursue her action against the proper corporation in Supreme Court, New York County. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted (to clarify, as defendant requests, that the decision is on the merits as to the issue of ownership) and the application of a voluntary discontinuance is denied as moot, all without prejudice to claimant's maintenance of the Supreme Court action.


March 7, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims