Opinion
# 2012-040-073 Claim No. 115854 Motion No. M-81448
08-17-2012
ISMAEL MELENDEZ, JR. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to set aside the Court's decision following trial denied. Case information
UID: 2012-040-073 Claimant(s): ISMAEL MELENDEZ, JR. Claimant short name: MELENDEZ Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 115854 Motion number(s): M-81448 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY Claimant's attorney: Gary E. Divis, Esq. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: August 17, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's motion to set aside the Decision of the Court, pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) and/or CPLR 2221(d), is denied. The Court's Decision found Defendant 30% liable for personal injuries that Claimant, Ismael Melendez, Jr., sustained in a fall on a stairway at Clinton Correctional Facility and Claimant 70% responsible (see Melendez v State of New York, UID No. 2012-040-013 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., March 5, 2012). The Court found that Defendant failed to maintain the stairway in a reasonably safe condition because of a gap in the handrail and that Claimant did not know why he tripped on the stairway and failed to put out his hands in an attempt to stop his fall or protect himself.
Claimant argues that the Court's Decision is erroneous and should be set aside because the Court placed too much responsibility for Claimant's injuries upon Claimant. He asserts that the Defendant should be held 100% responsible. Claimant asserts that his own acts did not substantially cause his own injuries.
CPLR 4404(b) provides as follows:
After a trial not triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside its decision or any judgment entered thereon. It may make new findings of fact or conclusions of law, with or without taking additional testimony, render a new decision and direct entry of judgment, or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue.
"Such motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court" (Di Bernardo v Gunneson, 65 AD2d 828, 829 [3d Dept 1978]; see Matter of Esterle v Dellay, 281 AD2d 722, 724 [3d Dept 2001]). "A judgment rendered after a bench trial should not be disturbed unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions cannot be supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289, 289 [1st Dept 2004]; see Heitman v State of New York, UID No. 2010-041-018 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., April 27, 2010]).
Moreover, CPLR 4404 must be read in conjunction with CPLR 4405, which states, in pertinent part, as follows: "[a] motion under this article shall be made before the judge who presided at the trial within fifteen days after decision, verdict or discharge of the jury." That rule governs practice in the Court of Claims (Arlen of Nanuet, Inc. v State of New York, 52 Misc 2d 1009, 1010 [Ct Cl 1967]). The fifteen-day period for making such a motion is measured from the date the decision was filed with the Clerk of the Court (see Bernstein v Swidunovich, 44 Misc 2d 728 [Sup Ct, New York County 1964]; Arlen of Nanuet, Inc. v State of New York, supra). Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 is timely.
The Court reviewed its Decision dated March 5, 2012 and the submissions by the parties in connection with this motion.
The Court concludes that Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the Court's finding that Claimant was comparatively negligent could not be "supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Saperstein v Lewenberg, supra at 289).
Based upon the foregoing, Claimant's motion to set aside the Decision of the Court, pursuant to CPLR 4404(b), is denied. Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) is denied as this statute refers to a motion to reargue a motion or to vacate an order. As Claimant is seeking to vacate a decision, CPLR 4404 is applicable and not CPLR 2221(d).
August 17, 2012
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's motion to set aside the Decision of the Court:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support
& Exhibit attached 1
Affirmation in Opposition 2