New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRADSHAW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-010-001, Claim No. 111677, Motion No. M-71076


Synopsis


Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2006-010-001
Claimant(s):
SOPHIA BRADSHAW
Claimant short name:
BRADSHAW
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111677
Motion number(s):
M-71076
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
SAASTO & HIRSCHBy: Jeffrey Hirsch, 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:
January 27, 2006
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibit.........................1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits..................................................2

Claim No. 111677 alleges that on August 18, 2005, "[c]laimant was passenger of NYS vehicle (in course of her employment for NYS Correctional Services (Arthur Kill facility) Her vehicle was struck by a HIT AND RUN AND POSSIBLY UNINSURED VEHICLE New Jersey Plate number NKF92E See police accident report, a copy of which is enclosed [sic] [emphasis added]" (Defendant's Ex. A).

Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that claimant has failed to allege how defendant was negligent and that claimant's exclusive remedy, when injured in the course of her employment, is provided by Workers' Compensation Law. Claimant opposes the motion and argues that "[d]efendant apparently misunderstood the claim" because claimant is making an uninsured motorist claim which does not require a showing of negligence and is not barred by Workers' Compensation Law (Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition, ¶ 2). Claimant attaches, as an exhibit, a Denial Claim Form indicating that no-fault benefits are denied as there was a policy in effect at the time of the reported loss and there is coverage available with: "Self-Insured (NYS Correctional Services)."

Upon review of all the documents submitted, this Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss and directs claimant to serve and file an Amended Claim within 30 days of receipt of a filed stamped copy of this decision and order. The Amended Claim shall allege with sufficient particularity the nature of the claim and the necessary facts to articulate such claim.


January 27, 2006
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims