From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Encarnacion v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 20, 2008
49 A.D.3d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 501893.

March 20, 2008.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Schaewe, J.), entered December 15, 2006, which denied claimant's motion for partial summary judgment.

Bernabe Encarnacion, Pine City, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Claimant brought this action contending, among other things, that defendant was responsible for the value of items of personal property taken and not returned by employees of the Department of Correctional Services. He made a motion denoted as one for partial summary judgment (although he sought judgment on both liability and damages). The Court of Claims denied the motion and claimant now appeals.

The drastic relief of "[s]ummary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue" ( McIntyre v State of New York, 142 AD2d 856, 858; see Peterson v State of New York, 130 AD2d 813, 814). The proof presented is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant ( see Card v Brown, 43 AD3d 594, 595 [2007]; Walton v Albany Community Dev. Agency, 279 AD2d 93, 94-95). Review of the record in the light most favorable to defendant reveals that factual issues abound. The issue of who owned the law books removed from claimant's cell is not sufficiently established. The $100 that claimant contends was wrongfully deducted from his inmate account is disputed by defendant's assertion that such amount was never taken from his account. The evidence is unclear regarding the alleged removal from claimant's cell of legal materials in yellow envelopes and, if removed, whether such materials were returned to claimant. In light of the factual issues, the Court of Claims properly denied claimant's motion.


Summaries of

Encarnacion v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 20, 2008
49 A.D.3d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Encarnacion v. State

Case Details

Full title:BERNABE ENCARNACION, Appellant, v. STATE OP NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 20, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2517
854 N.Y.S.2d 567

Citing Cases

McDay v. State

We affirm. The drastic remedy of summary judgment should only be granted where there is no doubt as to the…

Torrance Constr., Inc. v. Jaques

Motion for Summary JudgmentOn a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish, by admissible proof,…