New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

COLEMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-033-287, Claim No. 113915, Motion No. M-74068


Claimant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Earl Coleman, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Michael W. Friedman, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 15, 2008

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

This is a claim by Earl Coleman (hereinafter “claimant”) for damages arising from the alleged negligence of defendant. The alleged negligence occurred on May 7, 2007, at Eastern Correctional Facility, Napanoch, New York.
According to claimant, a correction officer was pushing claimant’s cell door closed with his foot. At the same time the door was being closed, claimant was attempting to push the door open with his hand. The door closed on claimant’s finger.
Claimant moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which deprives a party of its day in court and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a material issue of fact (Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943; Epstein v Scally, 99 AD2d 713). The Court's function is to determine if an issue exists. In doing so, the Court must examine the proof in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Summary judgment may only be granted if movant provides evidentiary proof in admissible form to demonstrate that there are no questions of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93, aff'd 26 AD2d 729). Once the movant has demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to create an issue of fact or demonstrate an acceptable excuse for his failure to submit such proof (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Mere conclusions, speculation or expressions of hope are insufficient to defeat the motion (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525).
In the instant matter, claimant has failed to set forth evidence in an admissible form.
Based upon the foregoing, claimant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

April 15, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].The following papers were read and considered on claimant’s motion: Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment dated October 2, 2007 and filed October 5, 2007; Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of Earl Coleman with annexed Exhibits sworn to October 2, 2007 and filed October 5, 2007; Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment of Michael W. Friedman, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated November 5, 2007 and filed November 7, 2007.