Opinion
# 2021-032-023 Claim No. 129595
03-10-2021
SHAREFF GODDARD v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Franzblau Dratch, P.C. By: Brian Dratch, Esq. Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant, who slipped and fell in correctional facility bathroom, failed to establish that water on the floor constituted a dangerous condition or that defendant had notice of the alleged condition. Claim dismissed.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-023 |
| Claimant(s): | SHAREFF GODDARD |
| Claimant short name: | GODDARD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 129595 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Franzblau Dratch, P.C. By: Brian Dratch, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 10, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The instant claim was filed on April 19, 2017 seeking damages for injuries sustained when claimant slipped on a puddle of water in the bathroom at Greene Correctional Facility (Greene CF). Issue was joined on May 31, 2017. The matter proceeded to a virtual trial that took place on August 11, 2020 in Albany, New York.
The parties stipulated to conducting the trial virtually.
FACTS
On March 8, 2017, claimant resided at Greene CF in the E2 dormitory. On that date, claimant stated that he "was on [his] way to the bathroom in housing E2 at Greene [CF]. While walking to the bathroom [he] did not notice that there was a puddle of water on the floor . . . [he] slipped while stepping on the water . . ." (Claim ¶ 2).
At trial, claimant described the layout when entering the bathroom as consisting of three to four sinks, three urinals, three toilets, and finally the shower area, all on the left side of the room (T: 14). He entered the bathroom to take a shower at approximately 11:00 a.m. wearing a towel, and shower shoes, which were made of rubber. When he entered the bathroom that morning and proceeded to the shower area, he did not observe any water on the floor. A shower mat was inside the shower so he did not wear his shower shoes while inside the shower. After showering for approximately 10 minutes, claimant dried himself, wrapped himself back in the towel, and stepped outside of the shower to put his shower shoes back on. No other inmates were in the bathroom during the time that claimant was taking a shower or exiting the shower. He proceeded to leave the shower and somehow fell and awoke in a puddle of water in front of the first stall, bleeding from his head. He has no recollection of how he fell. When he awoke, there were correction officers and a nurse surrounding him. He was taken to Albany Medical Center for treatment.
References to the trial transcript are indicated herein (T: ).
Claimant filed a grievance regarding the accident (Exhibit C). He claims in this grievance "[t]he floor in the bathroom stays wet and theres (sic) always puddles, because the pipes under the floor needs [sic] to be fixed. Work orders about this problem have been in over a year and nothing has been done about it" (Exhibit C). At trial he claimed that since he had resided in E2, there was a problem with a drain in front of the first stall with a toilet, which would flood each time the toilet was flushed. The first stall was located on the right side of the bathroom (T: 23).
Upon cross-examination, claimant testified that the lighting conditions in the bathroom were good at the time of the accident. Despite testifying at his deposition that two witnesses were inside the bathroom at the time of the fall, claimant testified at trial that the witnesses were outside the E2 bathroom when he entered it (T: 29). However, he went on to testify that they observed the fall (T: 30).
Defendant called Charles Nicholas ("Nick") Cozzolino, the Maintenance Supervisor 3 at Greene CF, at the time of the alleged accident. Cozzolino testified that when he received a work order to address a maintenance issue, he would hand it to the correct craftsperson, and then enter the order into the "MP2 program" to track the orders (T: 36). When the job was complete the work orders would be handed back. He learned about claimant's alleged accident from Thomas A. Mauro, the Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor at Greene CF (Exhibit 8). Cozzolino was asked to retrieve any work order requests pertaining to the E2 bathroom. He searched for work order requests dated from January 1, 2016, up to and including the date of the accident but found no repairs to the pipes underneath the floor in the E2 bathroom. He identified Exhibit A as work order requests for the E2 bathroom. A review of this exhibit by the Court, reveals that there were several issues with water in the E2 bathroom throughout 2016 until the time of the accident, though all of the work order requests were completed.
Upon cross-examination, Exhibit 8 was reviewed with the witness. In response to Mauro's request, Cozzolino found six work order requests dealing with toilets, sinks and faucets in the E2 bathroom with dates between January 1, 2016 and April 16, 2017. All of the issues identified in the requests were rectified within days of being submitted.
On December 28, 2016, the Inmate Liaison Committee warned the prison about the water coming up through the floor in the E2 bathroom (Exhibit 2). The Deputy Superintendent for Administration, Francis Steinbach, made a note of the complaint and indicated that he would have the maintenance staff look into the issue (id.). A work order request dated April 16, 2017 indicates that the toilet in the first stall was "still leaking" despite the toilet being "brand new" (Exhibit A). There is no work order request for the initial installation of the toilet in the first stall. Cozzolino testified that "tons of things . . . are done on a verbal" (T: 47). Exhibit 8, which includes an email written by Cozzolino on April 11, 2017, indicated that Cozzolino could not locate a work order request for the toilet in the first stall, therefore any work on that toilet must have been completed pursuant to a verbal request. The previous toilet in the first stall was leaking, but parts needed to be ordered to fix it. The inmates were given a choice at that time to take the toilet out of service until parts arrived or let it remain in service. The inmates preferred that it stay in service. Parts were ordered on December 7, 2016 and two new toilets were ordered by maintenance on January 10, 2017, which were then back ordered until April 20, 2017. On or about April 11, 2017, a toilet was taken from another building and installed in the E2 bathroom. According to work orders after the alleged incident, leaking issues still occurred even after the installation of a new toilet in the first stall (Exhibit A).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
"When the State acts in a proprietary capacity as a landlord, it is subject to the same principles of tort law as is a private landlord" (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506 [1984]). It is well established under common law that the State has the duty to maintain its facilities in a reasonably safe condition, including its correctional facilities (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997 [1983]; see Heliodore v State of New York, 305 AD2d 708 [3d Dept. 2003]; Bowers v State of New York, 241 AD2d 760 [3d Dept 1997]). "Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as people at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates" (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247 [2002]). However, the State is not an insurer to those who enter upon its premises and negligence cannot be inferred from the mere happening of an accident (see McMullen v State of New York, 199 AD2d 603 [3d Dept. 1993]; Tripoli v State of New York, 72 AD2d 823 [3d Dept. 1979]). The State's duty to protect inmates is limited to the risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable (Sanchez, supra).
Claimant has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the credible evidence. In determining whether claimant has met his burden, the Court, as a finder of fact, must weigh the evidence presented after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and resolving conflicting evidence and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn therefrom (Zi Guang v State of New York, 263 AD2d 745, 746 [3d Dept. 1999]; Brooker v State of New York, 206 AD2d 712 [3d Dept. 1994]). After considering all of the testimony, and observing the witnesses and their demeanor as they testified, the Court finds that claimant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant breached its duty of care owed to claimant.
"To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a premises liability claim asserting that injury resulted from a dangerous condition, [c]laimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that: (1) [d]efendant owed [c]laimant a duty of care; (2) a dangerous condition existed that constituted a breach of that duty; (3) [d]efendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to alleviate the condition within a reasonable time; and (4) such condition was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by [c]laimant" (Tucker v State of New York, UID No. 2012-040-008 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Feb. 3, 2012], citing Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]; Keating v Town of Burke, 86 AD3d 660, 660-661 [3d Dept. 2011]; Baez v Jovin III, LLC, 41 AD3d 751, 752 [2d Dept. 2007]; DeLuke v City of Albany, 27 AD3d 925, 926 [3d Dept. 2006]). " 'The determination as to whether a condition is dangerous, requiring the landowner to then take remedial measures to correct the condition, depends upon the context or circumstances of each case' "(Smart v State of New York, UID No. 2018-029-087 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Sep. 13, 2018], quoting Forbes v State of New York, UID No. 2013-009-041 [Ct Cl, Midey, J., Jan. 8, 2014] [additional citations omitted]).
Initially, the Court finds it difficult to ascertain where claimant fell. Claimant testified that there were three toilets on the left side of the bathroom after the urinals (T: 14), but later testified that water came through "the first stall on your right" (T: 23). He testified that he "woke up in a puddle of water next to the first stall" (T: 16). Claimant did not introduce a document showing the layout of the E2 bathroom. Claimant was also unclear about the location of the alleged witnesses to the accident. At his deposition, he testified that two witnesses were in the bathroom at the time of the fall, but at trial he testified that they were outside the bathroom yet somehow still observed the alleged fall (T: 29-30). Neither witness testified at trial. Claimant also testified that he did not see any water on the floor around the drain prior to his fall and he could not identify the dimensions of the puddle of water that caused his fall (T: 30-31). Because bathrooms "are wet by their very nature" (Figueroa v State of New York, UID No. 2003-019-008 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Sep. 29, 2003]), claimant was required to establish that the bathroom floor was unusually wet, which he has failed to do here (see Rodriguez v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-059 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 6, 2018]). Without any credible testimony as to the location or origin of the water that allegedly caused claimant's fall, claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a dangerous condition existed (see Vanderpool v State of New York, UID No. 2015-040-018 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Apr. 17, 2015] [claimant failed to prove existence of dangerous condition in bathroom where there was no testimony establishing the amount of water on the bathroom floor]).
As to notice of the alleged dangerous condition, "[even] if defendant had a general awareness that the bathroom floor became wet at times, this would not obviate claimant from the burden of establishing that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the particular condition which allegedly caused claimant's fall" (Rodriguez v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-059 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 6, 2018], citing Gonzalez v Jenel Mgt. Corp., 11 AD3d 656, 657 [2d Dept. 2004]; McDuffie v Fleet Fin. Group, 269 AD2d 575 [2d Dept. 2000]).While the Court acknowledges that the E2 bathroom had issues with water leaks and overflows, there was no evidence establishing that defendant had notice of the particular condition of the alleged water accumulation near the first stall's toilet on the date of claimant's fall. Although claimant points to prior work order requests in the E2 bathroom, defendant swiftly responded to such requests regarding leaks and overflow issues as they occurred (Exhibit 8). Claimant did not establish that defendant had notice of the alleged water in front of the first stall on the day of the accident. Indeed, claimant testified that he did not see any water at any time prior to his fall. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether the alleged condition was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Therefore, upon review of the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that claimant has not established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant breached a duty of care owed to claimant. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.
The claim alleges causes of action for medical indifference and denial of medical treatment. However, claimant did not proffer any proof at trial to support these causes of action. Therefore, to the extent the claim alleges causes of action for medical indifference and denial of medical treatment, said causes of action are also dismissed. --------
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
March 10, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims