New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-032-154, Claim No. 114440, Motion No. M-76869


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2009-032-154
Claimant(s):
CONSTANTINEE L. JACKSON
Claimant short name:
JACKSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114440
Motion number(s):
M-76869
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant’s attorney:
Constantinee L. Jackson, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 19, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Before the Court is Claimant’s motion in which he lists the alleged wrongs he has suffered, attaches certain medical records and asks for a finding of negligence.

Defendant opposes the application and in doing so has treated it as an application for summary judgment. The Court will likewise review the application as if made pursuant to CPLR 3212.


The rule governing summary judgment is well established: 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. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), and such showing must be made "by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form"(Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). "[R]egardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers," in the absence of admissible evidence sufficient to preclude any material issue of fact, summary judgment is unavailable (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993] quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Summary judgment should not be granted where there is doubt as to the existence of a material issue of fact (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]; Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943 [3d Dept 1965]; Epstein v Scally, 99 AD2d 713 [1st Dept 1984]). 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.

Here, Claimant has provided no facts, simply conclusions, in support of the application. In fact, all information set forth in claimant’s “affidavit” and attached documents is subsequent to the filed date of his claim. As such, Claimant's application is devoid of any evidence from which the Court could make such a finding of liability as a matter of law and the Court cannot find that Claimant has met his initial burden.

Accordingly, Motion No. M-76869 is denied.




October 19, 2009
Albany, New York

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


Papers Considered:


1. Claimant’s Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit, dated June 19, 2009;

2. Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant’s Motion with Exhibit dated August 3, 2009.

Filed Papers: Claim, filed November 1, 2007; Verified Answer, filed August 17, 2007; Order, filed November 28, 2007; and Decision and Order, filed December 18, 2008.