Opinion
# 2020-053-511 Claim No. 133537 Motion No. M-94911
02-04-2020
JAWWAD ABDUL-HALIM v. STATE OF NEW YORK
JAWWAD ABDUL-HALIM, Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Tamara B. Christie, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
This pro-se claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The claim alleges negligence arising from a slip and fall incident and material questions of fact exist.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-053-511 |
| Claimant(s): | JAWWAD ABDUL-HALIM |
| Claimant short name: | ABDUL-HALIM |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 133537 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94911 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | J. DAVID SAMPSON |
| Claimant's attorney: | JAWWAD ABDUL-HALIM, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Tamara B. Christie, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 4, 2020 |
| City: | Buffalo |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Pro se claimant Jawwad Abdul-Halim alleges in claim no. 133537 that on July 16, 2019, he slipped and fell coming out of the shower in his cell in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Orleans Correctional Facility (Orleans), where he was incarcerated. Claimant moves for summary judgment. Defendant opposes claimant's motion.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which will only be granted when the moving party establishes that there are no triable issues of fact (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499 [2012]). The proponent of a summary judgment motion must present facts in evidentiary form sufficient to establish his right to judgment as a matter of law (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). If the proponent of the motion fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, his motion must be denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 562). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (Haymon v Pettit, 9 NY3d 324 [2007]).
As a property owner, the State has a duty to maintain its property, including correctional facilities, in a reasonably safe condition (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997 [1983]; Mosley v State of New York, 150 AD3d 1659 [4th Dept 2017]). To impose liability, there must be proof that a dangerous or defective condition existed which the State created or had actual or constructive knowledge of and failed to take remedial actions (Heliodore v State of New York, 305 AD2d 708 [3d Dept 2003]).
"[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury" (Clauss v Bank of Am., N.A., 151 AD3d 1629, 1631 [4th Dept 2017]). Here, claimant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of any material facts regarding defendant's negligence and his own comparative negligence (Fisher v Ciarfella, 300 AD2d 1028 [4th Dept 2002]). Rather, the conflicting fact assertions made by the parties create enumerable questions of fact regarding the condition of claimant's shower, whether the condition of the shower amounted to a dangerous condition, whether defendant created or had notice of any dangerous condition, and whether claimant's own conduct contributed to his fall. These material questions of fact require a trial where the Court may examine the evidence presented and assess the credibility of the witnesses.
Accordingly, claimant's motion no. M-94911 for summary judgment is denied.
February 4, 2020
Buffalo, New York
J. DAVID SAMPSON
Judge of the Court of Claims The following were read and considered by the Court: 1. Notice of motion and affidavit of Jawwad Abdul-Halim sworn to November 1, 2019, with annexed Exhibits A-H; 2. Opposing affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Tamara B. Christie dated January 8, 2020, with annexed Exhibits A-C; 3. Reply affidavit of Jawwad Abdul-Halim sworn to January 12, 2020; and 4. Letter dated January 23, 2020 from Jawwad Abdul-Halim.
By letter dated January 23, 2020, claimant identified N. Dawnley as the Corrections Officer who signed the "Cell Integrity Form" referred to in his reply affidavit. --------