New York State Court of Claims |
|
Your query court returned 50 results.
 |
June 25, 2020 | 2020-058-032 : LA FONTAINE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-058-032, Claim No. 128089, Motion No. M-95436 M-95436 Motion for Summary Judgment granted in part and denied in part; Defendant established as a matter of law that it had no duty to warn of open and obvious condition on the property; however, issue of fact as to whether staircase, which had allegedly become wet and slick from tracked-in rain, constituted a dangerous condition. Additionally, Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. |
|
June 9, 2020 | 2020-038-533 : D.G. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-533, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-94833 M-94833 Motion to treat notice of intention to file a claim as the claim denied as untimely. |
|
June 9, 2020 | 2020-038-534 : D.G. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-534, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-95113 M-95113 Motion to treat notice of intention to file a claim as the claim denied as untimely. |
 |
May 20, 2020 | 2020-015-057 : SCOTT v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-057, Claim No. 130050, Motion No. M-95392 M-95392 Claimant's motion to compel discovery or strike defendant's answer was granted in part. |
 |
May 18, 2020 | 2020-015-056 : MAHMOOD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-056, Claim No. 134432, Motion No. M-95381 M-95381 Claimant's motion for the assignment of counsel was denied. |
 |
May 11, 2020 | 2020-015-055 : GURVEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-055, Claim No. 128261, Motion No. M-95159 M-95159 Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as the claim was previously dismissed. |
 |
May 8, 2020 | 2020-015-047 : NASH v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-047, Claim No. 129666, Motion No. M-95278 M-95278 Pro se claimant's motion for the issuance of subpoenas was denied. |
|
May 7, 2020 | 2020-015-052 : MATHEWS v. STATE OF NEW YORK(1) , # 2020-015-052, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-95163 M-95163 Application for permission to file a late claim alleging negligent failure to place safety rails on college student's upper bunk was granted. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-043 : SMYTHE v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-043, Claim No. 133137, Motion No. M-95147 M-95147 Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as he failed to support the motion with copies of the pleadings or proof in admissible form. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-044 : GREEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-044, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-95370 M-95370 Movant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim was denied as the majority of factors required for consideration did not weigh in his favor. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-045 : JAWORSKI v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-045, Claim No. 126922, Motion No. M-95361 M-95361 Defendant's dismissal motion was denied as moot since the claim was previously dismissed for failure to prosecute. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-046 : FLEMING v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-046, Claim No. 131004, Motion No. M-95247 M-95247 Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as moot as the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was previously granted and the claim was dismissed. |
 |
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-048 : PROGRESSIVE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-048, Claim No. 133831, Motion No. M-95037, Cross-Motion No. CM-95276 M-95037 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground the claim was untimely due to the improper service of the notice of intention was granted and the claim dismissed. Claimant's cross motion to convert its notice of intention to a claim or, in the alternative, file a late claim was denied as the notice of intention was not properly served and claimant failed to submit an affidavit from someone with knowledge of the facts or a proposed verified claim. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-049 : CODRINGTON v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-049, Claim No. 131751, Motion No. M-95018 M-95018 Claimant's motion for the assignment of counsel was denied. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-051 : HERNANDEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-051, Claim No. 133208, Motion No. M-95246 M-95246 Claimant's motion for summary judgment on his claim alleging negligent supervision by prison staff was denied. |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-054 : WALKER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-054, Claim No. 131860, Motion No. M-95352 M-95352 |
|
May 6, 2020 | 2020-015-038 : LEE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-038, Claim No. 129942, Motion Nos. M-95149, M-95150, M-95151 M-95149, M-95150, M-95151 Claimant's motion for in camera review of a file of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and for the issuance of subpoenas was granted in part. The Court found defendant's redactions to the OSI file appropriate and directed the defendant to produce the redacted file and several witnesses for trial without the need for subpoenas. |
|
April 27, 2020 | 2020-015-033 : SERVICE v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-033, Claim No. 127936, Motion No. M-95016 M-95016 In a pro se inmate's claim for wrongful confinement, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim as untimely was denied as it failed to demonstrate the date the claim accrued. To the extent defendant alternatively contended that the claim failed to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) because it failed to sufficiently allege the date the claim accrued, the Court found that only the date the claim |
|
April 22, 2020 | 2020-015-037 : MARTINEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-037, Claim No. 130057, Motion No. M-95112 M-95112 Pro se inmate's motion for summary judgment on his wrongful confinement claim was denied and, upon searching the record, the claim was dismissed as claimant alleged only a violation of a drug testing directive which forms no basis for a claim of wrongful confinement. |
|
March 16, 2020 | 2020-015-035 : MAYRANT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-035, Claim No. 130040, Motion No. M-95117 M-95117 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of a verification was denied where it erroneously failed to raise such a defense in its filed answer to the claim. Rather, it appears an answer may have been filed on a verified claim which had been assigned a different claim number. |
|
March 16, 2020 | 2020-015-036 : BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-036, Claim No. 132601, Motion No. M-95105 M-95105 Pro se claimant's motion for the Court to review a decision of the Comptroller regarding the amount of her New York State pension was denied as the claim was previously dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. |
|
March 11, 2020 | 2020-038-530 : CAMPBELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-530, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-95139 M-95139 Claimant's motion for late claim relief denied. Claimant's time to file and serve the claim had not yet passed and the motion was therefore premature and, in any event, late claim relief is not available for an inmate lost property claim. |
 |
March 11, 2020 | 2020-038-502 : WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-502, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-94685, Cross-Motion No. CM-94858 M-94685 Claimant's motion to renew/reargue his previous motion for late claim relief denied. Claimant failed to identify any facts or law overlooked by the Court or any new facts or change in the law that would change the prior determination. Defendant's cross motion to dismiss the initial claim granted. Claim was untimely and was improperly served by regular mail. |
|
March 10, 2020 | 2020-015-032 : MILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-032, Claim No. 129961, Motion No. M-95015 M-95015 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was granted as the notice of intention failed to sufficiently specify the time when the claim arose and the claim was filed beyond the limitation period of Court of Claims Act § 10. |
|
March 9, 2020 | 2020-015-030 : RIVERA v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-030, Claim No. 129284, Motion No. M-94989 M-94989 Pro se claimant's motion to vacate judgment was denied as no judgment was entered and no basis to reargue or renew was demonstrated. |
|
March 9, 2020 | 2020-015-031 : JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-031, Claim No. 130887, Motion No. M-94985 M-94985 Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied as he failed to support his motion with copies of the pleadings and proof in admissible form. |
|
March 6, 2020 | 2020-058-026 : COOK v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-058-026, Claim No. 124204, Motion Nos. M-95154, M-95266, Cross-Motion No. CM-95279 M-95154, M-95266 Claimant's motion for leave to renew his prior motion to strike Defendant's answer is granted and, upon renewal, the Court adhered to its prior determination denying the motion; Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing negligent supervision claim for failure to state a cause of action granted; Claimant's cross motion to compel denied as moot. |
|
February 27, 2020 | 2020-015-028 : GORIS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-028, Claim No. 133216, Motion No. M-95047 M-95047 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for improper service was granted. |
|
February 25, 2020 | 2020-015-026 : SHATTUCK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-026, Claim No. 132050, Motion No. M-94645, Cross-Motion No. CM-95042 M-94645 Pro se inmate's claim alleging the use of excessive force was dismissed as untimely as neither the notices of intention nor the claim were served within 90 days of the alleged incident. |
|
February 25, 2020 | 2020-038-522 : WALKER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-522, Claim No. 126300, Motion No. M-95032 M-95032 Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss the claim granted. The notice of intention failed to allege the place where the claim arose and thus failed to comply with the pleading requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and did not extend the time to file and serve the claim. |
|
February 21, 2020 | 2020-015-025 : GRANGER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-025, Claim No. 131952, Motion No. M-94667 M-94667 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and on the additional ground the claim was untimely was granted. Claimant failed to allege the date the claim of medical malpractice |
|
February 19, 2020 | 2020-015-021 : BRYANT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-021, Claim No. 132399, Motion No. M-94890, Cross-Motion No. CM-94980 M-94890 Pro se inmate's motion for summary judgment on his claim for wrongful confinement was denied as was defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim for improper service. Claimant failed to establish the violation of a due process safeguard in the conduct of a prison disciplinary hearing or that the outcome of the hearing would have been different without the violation. Defendant in support of its cross motion addressed the manner in which an amended claim was served, but failed to address the manner in which the initial claim was served thereby requiring denial of it motion. |
|
February 19, 2020 | 2020-015-024 : GONZALEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-024, Claim No. 132766, Motion No. M-94611 M-94611 Claimant's motion to consolidate was granted where his two claims alleging the use of excessive force by correction officers involved a common actor, retaliation was alleged as the impetus for the second use of force, and undue prejudice was not shown. |
|
February 14, 2020 | 2020-015-022 : JAWORSKI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-022, Claim No. 126922 Claim was dismissed, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216. |
|
February 13, 2020 | 2020-015-023 : BLOODYWONE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-023, Claim No. 128722, Motion No. M-94973 M-94973 Claimant's motion to have his dismissed claim re-examined was denied. |
|
February 13, 2020 | 2020-038-517 : D.G. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-517, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-94382 M-94382 Claimant's motion to treat a notice of intention to file a claim as the claim denied as untimely. |
|
February 13, 2020 | 2020-029-020 : BARNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-029-020, Claim No. 129722 After a video trial on the pro se claim for wrongful confinement at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in 2017, the court found the State liable for the period of 15 days past administrative reversal of claimant's Superintendent Hearing and expungement of his record. The court awarded claimant $10.00 per day for a total of $150.00. |
 |
February 10, 2020 | 2020-058-015 : REID v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-058-015, Claim No. 117689 Claim dismissed pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 19 (3) for Claimant's failure to prosecute decade-old Claim. |
|
February 4, 2020 | 2020-029-010 : COLON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-029-010, Claim No. 127373 Claimant seeks damages for injuries he sustained in 2013 when the negligence of medical staff at Downstate Correctional Facility delayed a diagnosis of bacterial endocarditis, which resulted in claimant undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery. After a trial on liability only, the court found the State 100% liable for medical negligence, and dismissed the cause of action for deliberate indifference. |
|
January 31, 2020 | 2020-015-020 : GREEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-020, Claim No. 127056, 128214 Following remote video trial of pro se litigant's claim for medical malpractice and negligence by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision in the treatment of his diabetes, claim was dismissed as the medical proof and testimony did not support the claim and no expert witness testimony was presented. |
|
January 31, 2020 | 2020-038-515 : GUNN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-515, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-94930 M-94930 Claimant's motion for late claim relief denied. The proposed claim patently lacked merit, the delay in filing the claim was not excusable, and claimant had other remedies available to him. |
|
January 31, 2020 | 2020-059-006 : ADAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-059-006, Claim No. 124215 |
|
January 31, 2020 | 2020-058-010 : WOODS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-058-010, Claim No. 126933 After trial, dismissing Claim alleging assault and battery and excessive use of force by correction officers. |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-511 : D.D. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-511, Claim No. 133323, Motion No. M-94469 M-94469 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim granted. The claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it failed to state a cause of action. |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-513 : D.D. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-513, Claim No. 133324, Motion No. M-94471 M-94471 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim granted. The claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it failed to state a cause of action. |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-514 : CASTILLO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-514, Claim No. 133798, Motion No. M-94935 M-94935 |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-510 : D.D. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK,(2) , # 2020-038-510, Claim No. 133321, Motion No. M-94451 M-94451 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim granted. The claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it failed to state a cause of action. |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-509 : D.D. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-509, Claim No. 133322, Motion No. M-94450 M-94450 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim granted. Claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it failed to state a cause of action. |
|
January 30, 2020 | 2020-038-512 : D.D. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-038-512, Claim No. 133325-A, Motion No. M-94470 M-94470 Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim granted. The claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it failed to state a cause of action. |
|
January 29, 2020 | 2020-053-002 : LUMPKIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-053-002, Claim No. 130926 After a trial of this claim alleging that the pro se claimant slipped and fell due to the negligence of the State, the Court dismissed the claim as claimant failed to establish that a dangerous condition existed. |