| Covington v State of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07052 [54 AD3d 1137] |
| September 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| John Covington, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered July 20, 2007,upon a dismissal of the claim at the close of proof.
Claimant, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County,commenced this action in September 2005 claiming damages he allegedly sustained as the resultof a mouse bite on his left big toe. Following the close of proof in a trial on the matter, the Courtof Claims granted defendant's motion to dismiss. Claimant appeals and we affirm.
While defendant is not an insurer against every injury that might occur on its property, itbears a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all of thecircumstances, including the likelihood and seriousness of a potential injury and the burden ofavoiding such risk (see Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997, 998 [1983]; Bernard v State of New York, 34AD3d 1065, 1067 [2006]; Bowers v State of New York, 241 AD2d 760, 760 [1997];Condon v State of New York, 193 AD2d 874, 874-875 [1993]). In contrast to claimant'sclaims that the cell block in which he was housed was infested with rodents, defendant presentedthe testimony of the plant superintendent of Great Meadow, who explained that the facilitycontracted with an outside exterminator who visited the facility weekly and treated all of thecommon areas, as well as individual cells that had been reported by inmates to have hadproblems. In addition, defendant submitted service reports from the pest control company fromJanuary 2005 and February 2005, just prior to claimant's alleged injury, describing the [*2]extermination procedures employed, which included the placementof glue boards in claimant's cell block for the purpose of catching mice. Thus, we find ampleevidence in the record to support the Court of Claims' determination that claimant failed to provethat defendant was negligent (see Bowers v State of New York, 241 AD2d at 761).
We have examined claimant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.