Opinion
# 2012-041-505 Claim No. 114964
07-25-2012
MICHAEL WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claim alleging injuries due to slip and fall on ice is dismissed after trial where claimant failed to prove that he slipped on ice, and further, claimant offered no evidence that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of an allegedly icy condition. Case information
UID: 2012-041-505 Claimant(s): MICHAEL WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 114964 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO MICHAEL WILLIAMS Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Michael Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: July 25, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Trial of this claim was held on May 31, 2012. Michael Williams (claimant), an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility (CCF), fell on the morning of March 12, 2007 between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. while walking on a path from the laundry room to the mess hall, sustaining injuries to his back.
That Mr. Williams fell is undisputed. The reasons for his fall are less clear. Although claimant testified that the reason for his fall "must have been ice," he never actually testified that he observed ice on the path where he fell, either prior or subsequent to his fall.
When he fell on March 12, 2007, claimant had not previously been in that area of CCF that day. And although claimant surmised that he fell due to ice, he specifically indicated that he was unaware of how long the allegedly icy condition of the path had existed.
Scott Goldfarb, the correction officer supervising claimant's laundry room work detail on the morning of March 12, 2007, was the only other trial witness. He testified generally about maintenance protocols during winter months in that area of CCF. The path to the laundry room needed to be kept clear because push carts were constantly navigating the path in question. An inmate porter, described by Mr. Goldfarb as reliable, was responsible to ensure on a daily basis that the path was kept clear, and would, upon reporting to work each day at 8:00 a.m., sand and salt the path as needed.
More specifically, Mr. Goldfarb reported the following conditions on the morning of March 12, 2007. It was not snowing. He observed no ice in the area of claimant's fall. No complaints of icy conditions or of prior falls in that area that day had been expressed to him.
DiGrazia v Lemmon (28 AD3d 926, 927 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]), explains that in an action based upon a fall caused by ice a claimant is "required to present evidence that ice existed, and that it was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to [his] fall to permit defendant to discover and remedy it."
This essential point is further illustrated in Richer v State of New York (31 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2006]):
"[C]laimant's proof, consisting of her testimony only, did not establish to any extent that the icy condition had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant to become aware of and remedy the situation (see DiGrazia v Lemmon, 28 AD3d 926, 927 [2006]; Boucher v Watervliet Shores Assoc., 24 AD3d 855, 857 [2005]; Polgar v Syracuse Univ., 255 AD2d 780, 780 [1998]).
Further, a defendant's "general awareness that icy conditions might have existed is insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition that resulted in [claimant's] injuries" (DiGrazia, 28 AD3d at 927).
Although claimant testified earnestly and forthrightly at trial, he failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Initially, claimant was unable to specifically, or persuasively, establish either that ice had formed on the path or that he had in fact slipped on ice. Accordingly, claimant has failed to prove the existence of a dangerous condition.
Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that claimant did slip on ice on the morning of March 12, 2007, there is simply no evidence in the record that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of that condition. No proof was presented to establish that the path had an icy condition that had existed for any period of time, whether five minutes or five days. Claimant has failed to prove defendant had actual or constructive notice of the path's allegedly icy condition, or that defendant had an opportunity, which it neglected, to remediate that condition after having been made aware of its existence.
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is dismissed.
All motions not previously decided are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
July 25, 2012
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims