Opinion
# 2021-041-028 Claim No. 129945 Motion No. M-96554
05-13-2021
P.R.B. v. STATE OF NEW YORK
O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ By: Stephen R. Coffey, Esq. FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER FIRTH PC By: Joshua D. Lindy, Esq.
Synopsis
Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of defendant's appeal of the Court's Decision and Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim is denied where defendant fails to show a likelihood that the Court's Decision and Order will be reversed on appeal, has not demonstrated that it will be specifically prejudiced by a denial of its request for a stay and the claimant has a presumptive right to have her claim heard as expeditiously as practicable.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-041-028 |
| Claimant(s): | P.R.B. |
| Claimant short name: | P.R.B. |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption is amended to reflect the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 129945 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96554 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ By: Stephen R. Coffey, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER FIRTH PC By: Joshua D. Lindy, Esq. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 13, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 2201 for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of defendant's appeal of the Court's Decision and Order (P.R.B. v State of New York and State University of New York, Claim No. 129945, Motion No. M-95438 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., January 29, 2021]) denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.
Claimant opposes the defendant's motion for a stay of proceedings pending appeal.
This straightforward premises liability claim alleges that on October 23, 2016 claimant was a student at the State University of New York residing in a dormitory at the Stuyvesant Tower, 676 Dutch Quad, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York. At that date and location, at approximately 4:00 a.m., claimant "was sleeping in her assigned room when she was caused to unexpectedly awake to an unidentified male raping her" causing claimant to suffer severe injuries and damages.
The claim further alleges that the claimant's injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of the defendant in, among other things, failing to secure the lobby of the Stuyvesant Tower residential dormitory from access by unauthorized persons and by failing to provide an appropriate locking mechanism on the door to claimant's suite.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was denied on January 29, 2021 because the Court found that the defendant, in operating the campus residential dormitory, was acting in a proprietary capacity as a landlord, rather than in a governmental capacity, with respect to claimant's assertion that defendant failed to provide adequate security measures in the residential dormitory. The Court further found that issues of fact exist whether the sexual assault of claimant was reasonably foreseeable and whether the defendant fulfilled its duty to provide reasonable security measures at the residential dormitory.
Finally, the Court found that factual issues exist regarding proximate cause despite defendant's assertion that claimant had not established exactly how her assailant had gained access to Stuyvesant Tower and therefore, could not prove that a lack of security in the lobby or in the suite had proximately caused claimant's injuries and damages.
In that regard, the Court pointed out that claimant's assailant was not a student, did not reside at the Stuyvesant Tower residential dormitory and was unknown to claimant. The Court found that those facts, together with the testimony from a State University of New York Assistant Police Chief that the assailant likely "tailgated" into the lobby by following an authorized person into the lobby, could lead to a reasonable inference that the assailant was an "intruder" (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 551 [1998]).
Defendant argues that a stay of the claim is appropriate because defendant has a "meritorious appeal with a considerable likelihood of success, and the claimant will not be prejudiced by a brief stay of the proceedings." Defendant further contends that a stay would "avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and the potential waste of valuable judicial resources."
Pursuant to CPLR 2201, a court "may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just." The determination as to whether to grant a stay is discretionary with the Court (see Sears v Country Developers, 178 AD2d 708, 709 [3d Dept 1991]), and should be denied "unless the proponent shows good cause for granting it" (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2201:7).
Here, the defendant asks the Court to stay its own decision pending an appeal of that decision. The Court notes that neither of the initial two cases relied upon by defendant in arguing that a stay in this action is required to avoid "the risk of inconsistent adjudications, application of proof and potential waste of judicial resources" (Adirondack Wild Friends of the Forest Pres. v Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 65 Misc3d 1211(A) [Sup Ct, Warren County 2019] and Matter of Tenenbaum, 81 AD3d 738 [2d Dept 2011]) involve a court staying its own decision pending an appeal of that very decision. Further, the additional case cited by defendant for this proposition, Uptown Healthcare Mgmt. Inc. v Rivkin Radler LLP, 116 AD3d 631 (1st Dept 2014), is inapposite, involving a federal court action apparently related or relevant to the state court action.
Defendant has failed to show a "considerable likelihood" that the Court's Decision and Order will be reversed on appeal and has not demonstrated that it will be specifically prejudiced by a denial of its request for a stay of these proceedings. Further, the claimant has a "presumptive right to have [her claim] heard as expeditiously as practicable" (Scotts Co., LLC v Ace Indem. Ins. Co., 18 Misc3d 1139(A) [Sup Ct NY County 2008], aff'd sub nom. Scotts Co., LLC v Pac. Emps. Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2009]).
In sum, defendant has failed to show good cause to grant a stay of the proceedings pending determination of defendant's appeal of this Court's Decision and Order denying defendant summary judgment, dismissing the claim.
The defendant's motion is denied.
May 13, 2021
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed March 17, 2021; 2. Affirmation of Joshua D. Lindy, dated March 16, 2021, and attached exhibits; 3. Undated Affirmation of Stephen R. Coffey and attached Memorandum of Law; 4. Reply Affirmation of Joshua D. Lindy, dated April 28, 2021.