New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MISCH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-031-011, Claim No. 109795, Motion No. M-70774


Synopsis


Claimant established its entitlement to summary judgment on issue of negligence relating to causation of accident

Case Information

UID:
2006-031-011
Claimant(s):
PAMELA J. MISCH
Claimant short name:
MISCH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109795
Motion number(s):
M-70774
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant’s attorney:
THE JOYCE LAW FIRMBY: ELIZABETH A. GARRY, ESQ.
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: G. LAWRENCE DILLON, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

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

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Claimant for summary judgment:
  1. Claimant’s Notice of Motion, filed October 7, 2005;
  2. Affidavit of Pamela J. Misch, sworn to October 5, 2005, with attached exhibits;
3) Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Garry, Esq., sworn to October 5, 2005, with attached exhibits.

Claimant, Pamela J. Misch, alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on October 8, 2003 on Harrison Street in Johnstown, New York. At the time of the accident, Ms. Misch was stopped in traffic and waiting to turn left into a parking lot when the car she was driving was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by Mark C. Duthe, an employee of Defendant.

With this motion Claimant seeks summary judgment. Defendant has contacted both the Court and Claimant’s counsel indicating that it had no opposition to summary judgment on the issue of negligence but, as no showing of serious injury has been made, Defendant would oppose summary judgment on the issue of liability. It is the Court’s understanding, after review of Claimant’s papers and discussions with counsel, that Claimant agrees with Defendant’s position and seeks summary judgment only on the issue of negligence.

Accordingly, as there has been no showing of serious injury (see Dumas v Valley View House, Inc., 235 AD2d 767), I find that summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of negligence only.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that Claimant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s negligence is granted.

March 1, 2006
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims