New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MONROE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-009-013, Claim No. 108836, Motion No. M-70807


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2006-009-013
Claimant(s):
JAMEL MONROE
Claimant short name:
MONROE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108836
Motion number(s):
M-70807
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
JAMEL MONROE, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 1, 2006
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order granting him summary judgment.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support, with Exhibits 1,2


Affirmation in Opposition, with Exhibit 3

In this claim, claimant, an inmate at Mid-State Correctional Facility, alleges that on July 21, 2003, he was injured when he fell out of a moving van and onto a paved roadway, while engaged in a work detail at the facility. Claimant alleges that the van was overcrowded with wet mop-heads contained in plastic bags which had been collected from the various housing units at the facility, leaving him inadequate room to be safely transported in the van. As a result, when claimant slipped on one of the wet bags in the van, he fell through the back doors of the van. He further alleges that those doors were not properly and securely latched. Claimant seeks damages for the personal injuries suffered by him in this incident, based upon allegations of negligence. In this motion, claimant now seeks an order granting him summary judgment.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which deprives a party of its day in court and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a material issue of fact (Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943). It is the procedural equivalent of a trial (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). The role of the Court, therefore, on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve material issues of fact, but instead to determine if such issues exist (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395). In doing so, the Court must examine the submitted proof in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Summary judgment may only be granted if the movant provides evidentiary proof in admissible form to demonstrate that there are no material questions of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851). The threshold to be met is high, since "there must be only one conclusion that can be drawn from the undisputed facts" (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 254). Negligence actions are rarely appropriate for resolution by summary judgment, since they typically involve numerous factual issues and require an assessment of whether the defendant's actions were reasonable (Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514).

In support of his motion for summary judgment, claimant has only submitted his personal affidavit, which reiterates and expands upon the allegations made in his claim. He has not, however, submitted sufficient evidentiary proof in support of his allegations that would enable this Court to render a judgment as a matter of law. Claimant's conclusory statements that the State was negligent and has no defense to this claim are insufficient to sustain his burden of establishing his right to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-70807 is hereby DENIED.


March 1, 2006
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims