Opinion
# 2015-009-033 Claim No. 125035 Motion No. M-86543 Motion No. M-86701
12-14-2015
REUBEN LEWISv. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
REUBEN LEWIS, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq., Senior Attorney Of Counsel.
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment on his bailment claim was denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-009-033 |
| Claimant(s): | REUBEN LEWIS |
| Claimant short name: | LEWIS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125035 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86543, M-86701 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. |
| Claimant's attorney: | REUBEN LEWIS, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq., Senior Attorney Of Counsel. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 14, 2015 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In motion No. M-86543, claimant seeks an order granting him summary judgment on this claim, which sounds in bailment. In a separate motion (M-86701), claimant seeks an order permitting him to serve and file an amended claim.
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with these motions:
Notice of Motion; Affidavit in Support (M-86543) 1, 2
Affirmation in Opposition (M-86543) 3
Correspondence from Claimant, with attachments, dated May 20, 2015 4
Notice of Motion; Affidavit in Support, with Exhibit (M-86701) 5, 6
Affirmation in Opposition (M-86701/M-86543) 7
Filed Papers: Motion papers, including Decision and Order, with respect to motion No. M-85945.
With regard to claimant's motion seeking permission to serve and file an amended claim (M-86701), the Court has reviewed the motion papers and its prior Decision and Order in motion No. M-85945, filed April 16, 2015. It is readily apparent that motion No. M-86701 is a duplicate of claimant's prior motion (M-85945) in which this Court granted claimant's request to amend his claim. From the papers submitted in connection with the instant motions (M-86543/M-86701), it is equally clear that claimant has served and filed his amended claim, and that defendant has served and filed an Amended Answer. Accordingly, motion No. M-86701 is moot.
With regard to motion No. M-86543, claimant seeks an order granting him summary judgment on his bailment claim. In his amended claim, claimant alleges that certain items of his personal property were lost and/or damaged on November 8, 2013, when claimant was removed from his housing area at Marcy Correctional Facility, where he was then incarcerated, and transferred to the Special Housing Unit at that facility. In his amended claim, claimant alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, and he has attached a copy of his Facility Claim No. 490-0158-13 from Marcy Correctional Facility.
It is well settled that summary judgment is the procedural equivalent of a trial (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361 [1974]) and should be granted only when it has been established that there is no triable issue of fact (Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943 [3d Dept 1965]). The role of the Court, therefore, on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve material issues of fact, but instead is to determine whether any such issues exist (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). If such material issues of fact exist, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1978]). However, "only the existence of a bona fide issue raised by evidentiary facts and not one based on conclusory or irrelevant allegations will suffice to defeat summary judgment" (id. at 231).
The proponent of a summary judgment motion must first make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, providing sufficient evidence eliminating any material issue of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Once the proponent has made this prima facie showing, the opponent of the motion must then produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form, to establish material questions of fact which would require a trial (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The submitted evidence must be analyzed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, and that party must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference (Egan Real Estate v McGraw, 40 AD2d 299 [4th Dept 1973]). As a result, summary judgment is considered a drastic remedy that should not be granted if there is any doubt regarding a material issue of fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, at 231).
In this particular matter, claimant has alleged that his personal property remained secured while in his possession, in accordance with Directive #4912. Defendant, on the other hand, relies on claimant's institutional claim No. 490-0158-13, in which claimant's administrative claim was denied (and his administrative appeal was disapproved) on the basis that he failed to properly secure his property.
It certainly appears, therefore, that a material issue of fact is in dispute, necessitating a trial for the proper resolution of this claim. Claimant has therefore failed to meet his initial burden of proof on this motion for summary judgment, and it must therefore be denied. This claim will continue to be included on the pro se trial calendar maintained by the Court of Claims, and will be called for trial pursuant to the scheduling practices of the Clerk's office.
Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is
ORDERED, that motion No. M-86701 is hereby DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED, that motion No. M-86543 is hereby DENIED.
December 14, 2015
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims