New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-015-168, Claim No. 112352, Motion No. M-72702


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment on his claim for shipping costs in the amount of $9.10 was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-015-168
Claimant(s):
EDWIN LAMAGE
Claimant short name:
LAMAGE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112352
Motion number(s):
M-72702
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Edwin Lamage, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Frederick H. McGown, III, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 30, 2007
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment in his favor on his first cause of action in the amount of $9.10. The motion is denied. Claimant alleges in his first cause of action that as the result of a transfer to Wende Correctional Facility on February 4, 2005, he was required to ship his excess personal property by the United States Postal Service at his own expense. He alleges that although he received the property, it was delivered to him by the Department of Correctional Services without the utilization of the postal service for shipment. Accordingly, he claims the loss of $9.10 allegedly paid for shipping.

It is well established that "'summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue'" (Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978][citation omitted]). "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]) . Once the movant has made this showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion "to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action" (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] citing Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Claimant failed to meet his initial burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment as he failed to establish that his inmate account was improperly debited in the amount of $ 9.10.


March 30, 2007
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated December 18, 2006;
  2. Affidavit of Edwin Lamage sworn to December 18, 2006 with exhibit;
  3. Affirmation of Frederick H. McGown, III dated December 26, 2006.