New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BIALER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-014-511, Claim No. 108247, Motion No. M-70485


Defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied; issues of fact remain as to responsibility for maintenance of premises.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

S. Michael Nadel
Claimant’s attorney:
Donna H. Clancy
Defendant’s attorney:
Ahmuty, Demers & McManusBy Nicholas M. Cardascia
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 31, 2006
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim: Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits annexed, Memorandum of Law; Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits annexed, Memorandum of Law; Reply Affirmation and Exhibit annexed.

The claim arises out of an incident which occurred when the claimant was riding a bicycle on a bicycle path adjacent to the Hudson River Park at its intersection with Charles Street. The claim alleges that the claimant sustained injuries when he ran into a metal barricade which he claims was improperly placed across the path.

Upon consideration of the submissions, issues of fact exist which preclude summary judgment for the defendant. It is not established that the defendant, the owner of the property on which the incident occurred, is not responsible for its maintenance, or for the condition which caused the accident. The self serving testimony of one of the defendant’s employees (Exhibit E, Examination Before Trial of Shilpan Patel, Director of Environmental and Community Outreach for the Route 9A Project) that another entity is responsible for maintenance, and for the placement of the metal barricade, is insufficient to satisfy the defendant’s burden on a motion for summary judgment. Nor does the documentary evidence (Exhibit F, Agreement for Property Maintenance Services Between New York State Department of Transportation and The Hudson River Park Trust; Exhibit A to Reply Affirmation, Agreement Between The Hudson River Park Trust and Urban Park service of the City of New York Department of Parks & Recreation) resolve the issue.

The defendant’s contention that General Obligations Law § 9-103 precludes the imposition of liability, is dependent upon the conclusion that the exception for public entities who operate and maintain supervised public parks and recreational facilities (see Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446) does not apply here — a conclusion which is dependent upon the same factual issue of whether the defendant is responsible for maintenance of this bicycle path, which remains unresolved on the record before the Court.

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

July 31, 2006
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims