Annunziata v. State, # 2015-050-014

• Decision Date: 27 March 2015
• Docket Number: Motion No. M-85977,# 2015-050-014,Claim No. 121118
• Court: New York Court of Claims
• Parties: GIOVANNI ANNUNZIATA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

GIOVANNI ANNUNZIATA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

# 2015-050-014

Claim No. 121118

Motion No. M-85977

New York State Court of Claims

March 27, 2015

Synopsis

Defendant moves for summary judgment in a claim for damages sustained in a bicycle accident. The proof submitted by defendant in support of the motion reflects the presence of issues of fact related to the defense upon which the motion is predicated (that claimant assumed the risk). The presence of such issue of fact requires a denial of the motion. Defendant has failed to discharge its initial burden of proof and the motion is denied.

Case information

   UID: 2015-050-014  Claimant(s): GIOVANNI ANNUNZIATA   Claimant short name: ANNUNZIATA   Footnote (claimant name) :  Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK  Footnote (defendant name) :  Third-party claimant(s):  Third-party defendant(s):  Claim number(s): 121118  Motion number(s): M-85977  Cross-motion number(s):   Judge: STEPHEN J. LYNCH  Claimant's attorney:Rubin & Licatesi, P.C.  By: Jennifer M. Ahlfeld, Esq. Defendant's attorney:Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General  By: Theresa N. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General  Third-party defendant's attorney:   Signature date: March 27, 2015  City: Hauppauge   Comments:  Official citation:  Appellate results:   See also (multicaptioned case)  

Decision

The defendant moves for summary judgment in this claim for damages sustained in a bicycle accident alleged to have occurred on March 17, 2012. The motion is opposed by claimant.

The party seeking the "drastic" (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1978]) relief of summary judgment is required to demonstrate initially that he/she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065 [1979]) and that there exists no material issue of fact requiring a trial (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Only if the moving party discharges such initial burden of proof does the burden shift to the party opposing the motion, who then is required to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial (see Friends of Animals, 46 NY2d 1065).

Here, the proof submitted by defendant in support of the motion reflects the presence of issues of fact related to the defense upon which the motion is predicated, to wit, that claimant assumed the risk (primary assumption of risk). Here, as in Pirrelli v Long is. R.R., 226 AD2d 166 [1^st Dept 1996], the presence of such issue of fact requires a denial of the motion. Defendant has failed to discharge its initial burden of proof. Therefore, the issue...