Source: http://maclaw.nycourts.gov/claims/search/index.html?query=court&limit=50
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:30:08+00:00

Document:
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
Your query court returned 50 results.
Claim alleging that correction officers used excessive force on claimant during cell search is dismissed after trial where claimant's testimony alleging a series of severe beatings by the officers was belied by contemporaneous medical records and photographs of claimant and the credible testimony of defendant's trial witnesses demonstrated that the use of force upon claimant was authorized and appropriate under the circumstances.
Defendant's dismissal motion was granted for lack of service of the claim.
Application to file late claim is granted where claim alleging that defendant failed to adequately maintain state highway has appearance of merit and defendant had notice of circumstances underlying claimant's accident and injuries.
The claim is dismissed as jurisdictionally defective for claimant's failure to both file and serve the claim within 90 days of the accrual of the claim.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not create the dangerous condition and that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and claimant failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction granted. Claim filed and served 93 days after date of accrual.
Motion to serve and file a Claim late pursuant to CCA § 10(6) denied as moot.
Claimant's motion for assignment of counsel denied because it was not served upon the County Attorney. Moreover, defendant's denial of claimant's request a funeral visit does not demonstrate that he is facing a future loss of liberty or grievous forfeiture, and does not warrant the representation of counsel at public expense.
Trial decision. Claim of excessive force during an arrest.
Movant's motion for permission to file and serve a late claim is denied.
The claim is dismissed. Claimant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating claims arising out of the same conduct that was the basis of a federal complaint that was dismissed on the merits, with prejudice.
Pro se inmate's claim alleging damages for wrongful confinement as the result of a prison disciplinary hearing was dismissed following trial. Although claimant established a violation of one of the fundamental due process safeguards, thereby divesting the State of its claim to immunity, claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful confinement because he failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the hearing would have been different had no due process violation occurred. Claimant therefore failed to establish that the confinement was not privileged.
Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the defects were trivial as a matter of law in its summary judgment motion.
Damages were awarded following trial for pro se inmate's claim alleging damages for the loss of certain personal property.
Defendant moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds it fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), failed to state a cause of action, and was improperly served by regular mail. The motion was denied as the claim sufficiently alleged all of the particulars required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and stated a cause of action for negligent supervision. In addition, defendant failed to demonstrate the claim was served by regular mail.
Pro se inmate failed to establish a bailment at trial as no proof was presented that claimant owned or possessed the items of personalty he claimed were lost or that they were delivered to the possession of the defendant but not returned.
Claimant's motion for poor person status and the assignment of counsel was denied.
State's Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Claim was not served upon the Attorney General, as required by the CCA, granted. Claim dismissed.
Assault by correction officer. Court found claimant was the victim of excessive force by more than one correction officer.
Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CCA sections 10 and 11 is granted.
State's Motion to Dismiss Claim on grounds that Claimant failed to prosecute the action granted.
State's Motion to Dismiss based upon Claimant's failure to prosecute granted.
State's Motion to Dismiss the Claim based upon Claimant's failure to prosecute granted.
Movant's application to serve and file a Claim late pursuant to CCA § 10(6) denied.
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moved for summary judgment on his cause of action for wrongful confinement arising from a prison disciplinary hearing determination. Although claimant established a violation of one of the due process safeguards set forth in the applicable regulations, he failed to establish that the outcome of the hearing would have been different if the due process error had not occurred. As a result, claimant failed to demonstrate that the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
Pro se inmate claim alleging damages for wrongful confinement following a prison disciplinary hearing was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where he neither alleged in the claim nor in support of his separate motion for summary judgment that the Hearing Officer's determination of guilt had been reversed.
Court finds that Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was negligent with respect to his snowboarding accident.
Claim alleging medical malpractice/ medical negligence was dismissed following trial as claimant failed to present expert medical proof of a deviation from the applicable standard of care or that claimant's injury was proximately caused by such a deviation.
State's Motion to Dismiss on basis the Claim was improperly served upon Defendant by regular mail, and not by certified mail, return receipt requested or personal service as required by CCA § 11(a)(i), granted.
State's Motion to Dismiss on basis Claim fails to meet specificity requirements of CCA § 11(b) granted.
Bailment claim, claimant awarded $40.00.
Court OSC re: service. Defendant established Claim was not served upon Defendant as required by CCA. Claim dismissed.
Late claim application denied, proposed claim fails to state a cause of action, claimant's remedy should be Workers' Compensation.
Defendant's motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, for summary judgment sought to dismiss serial pro se litigant's five claims is granted and pro se claimant's cross motion to dismiss defenses is denied as moot.
Pro se inmate's motion and defendant's cross motion to renew this court's prior Order compelling defendant to respond to interrogatories were denied, and defendant was directed to properly respond to clamant's previously served interrogatories under oath.
Claimant's motion to compel discovery.
Following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, the Court dismissed a claim of negligence against the State resulting from a slip and fall accident. The Court ruled that claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a dangerous condition existed on the hospital floor where she fell.
Defendant Aspire of Western New York Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted and the Court also dismisses sua sponte the claim as against all other named defendants with the exception of the State of New York.
Claim alleging inmate sustained frostbite while working on the lawns and grounds crew was dismissed following trial as claimant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that defendant's negligence proximately caused his injuries.
Pro se inmate's motion to reargue the dismissal of his bailment claim was denied as he failed to establish that his lost legal documents had any value.
Claimant's motions for the assignment of counsel were denied.
Late claim application denied, motion papers and proposed claim not served on defendant.
At trial, claim dismissed for failure to prosecute, claimant failed to appear for trial.
Late claim application granted. Claimant found to have been sexually abused while in SHU, negligent supervision of it's correction officers, State had notice and an opportunity to investigate the claims of sexual abuse while in SHU.
Claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's affirmative defenses was denied.
Defendant found liable to claimant for injuries sustained when he was using a table saw while assigned to work in the correctional facility workshop. Defendant breached its duty to properly train the inmate/claimant in how to safely use the saw. Claimant was not reckless and thus his own conduct was not the sole proximate cause of his accident, but because he failed to exercise due care, his conduct was a proximate cause. Liability apportioned 50/50.

References: § 10
 § 11
 § 11
 § 10
 § 11
 § 11