Destefano v. State, # 2016-050-022

• Decision Date: 07 April 2016
• Docket Number: Motion No. M-87467,Claim No. 122149,# 2016-050-022
• Parties: PAUL DESTEFANO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
• Court: New York Court of Claims

PAUL DESTEFANO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

# 2016-050-022

Claim No. 122149

Motion No. M-87467

New York State Court of Claims

April 7, 2016

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 and maintenance of the roadway). 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: 2016-050-022  Claimant(s): PAUL DESTEFANO   Claimant short name: DESTEFANO  Footnote (claimant name) :  Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK  Footnote (defendant name) :  Third-party claimant(s):  Third-party defendant(s):  Claim number(s): 122149  Motion number(s): M-87467  Cross-motion number(s):   Judge: STEPHEN J. LYNCH  Claimant's attorney:Jacoby & Jacoby, Esqs.  By: Brian M. Martin, Esq. Defendant's attorney:Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General  By: John L. Belford, Assistant Attorney General  Third-party defendant's attorney:   Signature date: April 7, 2016  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 September 23, 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 material issues of fact requiring a trial for resolution including but not limited to (1) whether or not a defect existed in the drainage grate at the location and the time of the subject accident, (2) whether or not the drainage grate at said location constituted a dangerous condition on the date of the subject accident, (3) whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of such defective or dangerous condition and (4) whether the claimant...