Opinion
# 2014-050-061 Claim No. 118837 Motion No. M-85626
12-03-2014
KARL J. PAIGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Karl J. Paige, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Gregory P. Miller, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment denied because claimant failed to meet it's initial burden of proof. There are issues of fact necessitating a trial for the proper resolution of this claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-050-061 |
| Claimant(s): | KARL J. PAIGE |
| Claimant short name: | PAIGE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 118837 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85626 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
| Claimant's attorney: | Karl J. Paige, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Gregory P. Miller, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 3, 2014 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In this action the claimant seek damages in the sum of $2,500.00 for certain personal property which he claims was lost or taken when he was transferred from his cell at Wende Correctional Facility to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) in December, 2009. Claimant now moves for summary judgment. The defendant opposes the motion.
The party seeking the relief of summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as matter of law and the absence of any material issue of fact (see Sillman v Twentieth Cent. - Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). Only when this initial burden of proof is met by the moving party will the burden shift to the opponent of the motion (see Marston v State of New York, 41 Misc 3d 725 [Ct Cl 2012]). Here, the Court finds that the claimant has failed to demonstrate that there are no material issues of fact requiring a trial. In fact, claimant's evidence in support of the motion reflects that, notwithstanding that the claim is small in its amount, there are issues of fact necessitating a trial for the proper resolution of this claim. As the proof adduced by claimant failed to meet the initial burden of proof of the motion, it must be and is hereby denied (see Dong Ming Huang v State of New York, 41 Misc 3d 1203 (A) [Ct Cl 2013] citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]) and the issue of sufficiency of the opposing proof presented by the defendant is not reached. The Clerk shall assign a trial date as soon as is practicable and in accordance with the sequenced trial scheduling practices of the Clerk's Office.
December 3, 2014
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered on the claimant's motion for summary judgment:
1. Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support with Exhibits.
2. Defendant's Affirmation.