New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PRATT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-012, Claim No. 107991, Motion Nos. M-70909, CM-71095


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-012
Claimant(s):
ANDREW PRATT
Claimant short name:
PRATT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107991
Motion number(s):
M-70909
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-71095
Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
Andrew Pratt, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Michele M. Walls, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 3, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves this Court for summary judgment awarding him the relief demanded in his claim. In opposition, defendant cross-moves for summary judgment arguing that there are no triable issues of fact.

In July 2003, claimant was incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility and filed this negligence action alleging "depraved indifference" for failing to provide proper sized boots during the winter months. He alleges that on November 7, 2002, he experienced foot problems and received a medical slip for new boots. Approximately four weeks later, he received his one-year issue of State clothing consisting of socks, t-shirts, underwear, sneakers, pants and a coat. Claimant did not receive boots because the shop did not have his size in stock. Claimant continued to wear his old boots until they were worn out, and he received a sneaker pass. In January 2003, the shop offered claimant boots that were a half size too small. Because it was winter, and also because he could not participate in his work program without boots, he accepted the smaller sized boots. As a result, claimant experienced blisters and pain. Ultimately, in April 2003, claimant received properly fitting boots.

The parties previously moved for summary judgment with respect to this claim. The Court ultimately concluded that factual issues prevented summary judgment for either party (Decision and Order filed December 1, 2004). In support of his present motion, claimant states that the facility is required to have a minimum number of 24 size 9 ½ boots, claimant's size, in stock, and that defendant failed to have any in stock for the entire winter. In opposition and in support of its cross-motion, defendant argues that claimant was offered a used pair of the correct sized boots and refused them. Claimant denies that he was offered a used pair of the correct sized boots. As such, and as previously determined by the Court, factual issues prevent resolution of this claim by summary judgment.

Accordingly, claimant's motion M-70909 and defendant's cross-motion CM-71095 are denied. A trial shall be scheduled on this claim in the ordinary course of the procedures of this Court. No further applications for summary judgment shall be accepted.



March 3, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed November 3, 2005;

2. Affidavit of Andrew Pratt sworn to November 1, 2005; Exhibits A-G annexed ;

3. Notice of Cross-Motion filed December 30, 2005;

4. Affirmation of Michele M. Walls dated to December 28, 2005; Exhibits A-E annexed;

5. Claimant's Reply filed January 5, 2006.