New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LITTLE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-040, Claim No. 113434, Motion No. M-74005


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-016-040
Claimant(s):
SUZANNE LITTLE
Claimant short name:
LITTLE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113434
Motion number(s):
M-74005
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Grey and Grey, LLPBy: Pierre Bazile, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Law Offices of Patrick J. MaloneyBy: Mark Solomon, Esq.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 29, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In her underlying claim, Suzanne Little alleges that on May 12, 2005, she tripped and fell while exiting a passenger elevator on the premises of 1051 Riverside Drive, New York City, a property said to be owned by the State of New York. Ms. Little now moves for an order granting her leave to amend her claim to assert a total sum claimed in the amount of $2,000,000.[1] Recently, the Court of Claims Act was amended to provide that a total sum claimed need not be stated in claims for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death (see Chapter 606 of the Laws of 2007 and Chapter 64 of the Laws of 2008). Defendant does not dispute that such amendment applies to the instant claim and that a total sum need not be stated.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED THAT motion no. M-74005 be denied as moot.

September 29, 2008
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Claimant also seeks an order granting her permission to amend her notice of intention and deeming the amended verified claim properly served nunc pro tunc. In view of the court’s ruling below, such requests for relief need not be addressed.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits 1 through 5; and defendant’s affirmation in opposition with exhibits A through D.