New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRUMFIELD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-016-001, Claim No. 112222, Motion No. M-72423


Synopsis


Motion for trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-016-001
Claimant(s):
RUSSELL BRUMFIELD
Claimant short name:
BRUMFIELD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112222
Motion number(s):
M-72423
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Russell Brumfield, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Geoffrey B. Rossi, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 3, 2007
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant Russell Brumfield moves for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403. In his underlying claim, Mr. Brumfield alleges that on March 20, 2006, he was burned on the radiator in his cell at Sullivan Correctional Facility, and that defendant was negligent in failing to provide protective guards on the radiator. The circumstances under which a trial preference may be obtained are set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 of CPLR 3403(a). Claimant moves pursuant to paragraphs 1, 3 and 5.

Paragraph 1 provides in relevant part that if the State is a defendant, it may apply for a trial preference. Such paragraph is inapplicable as this is claimant’s application. Paragraph 3 provides that a preference may be granted in “an action in which the interests of justice will be served by an early trial.” Claimant has merely cited such paragraph with no explanation as to how it would be satisfied in this case. Paragraph 5 is inapplicable as it relates to medical, dental and podiatric malpractice cases.

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-72423 be denied.

January 3, 2007
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion; and defendant’s affirmation in opposition.