New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LOGIUDICE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-016-009, Claim No. 101772, Motion No. M-61246


Synopsis


Claimant alleged that he was injured while working on a barge under the City Island Bridge in the Bronx. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted on the grounds that the City of New York – not the state - owns, operates and maintains the bridge.

Case Information

UID:
2000-016-009
Claimant(s):
VITO LOGIUDICE
Claimant short name:
LOGIUDICE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101772
Motion number(s):
M-61246
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Talisman, Rudin & Delorenz, P.C.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 17, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

In his underlying claim, Vito Logiudice alleges that he was injured when a nail entered his foot while he was working on a barge under the City Island Bridge in the Bronx. This is defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the City of New York – not the State of New York – owns and maintains the bridge. In support of its contention, defendant has submitted the affidavit of Osama Khalil, Claims Engineer in the City of New York Regional office of the New York State Department of Transportation. In his affidavit, Khalil states that he reviewed the records of the Department of Transportation, which show that the City Island Bridge is owned and maintained by the City of New York. See ¶3 of the February 2, 2000 affidavit of Osama Khalil (the "Khalil Aff."). Khalil attaches a "bridge identification information sheet" and also states that there were no state construction contracts in effect with any contractor on the date and location alleged in the claim and that claimant did not work for the state or its contractors on that date. See id.

The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the City of New York, because the Court of Claims Act only grants this Court jurisdiction over specified suits against the State of New York. While there are a handful of entities other than the state which are made subject to Court of Claims jurisdiction by explicit statutory authority, for example the New York State Thruway Authority (by Public Authorities Law §361-b) or the senior colleges of the City University of New York (by Education Law §6224.4), the City of New York is not one of these entities.

Claimant has come forward with nothing contrary to defendant's assertions regarding the City of New York, having submitted no opposition papers.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion granted and the claim herein is dismissed.


April 17, 2000
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]Aside from the claim, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion and accompanying affidavit with Exhibits A-C. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.