New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DEPPNER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-001, Claim No. 103249, Motion No. M-62781


Labor Law case involving accident at Manhattan Bridge dismissed as state did not own, operate, or maintain the bridge or have any construction contracts at the site.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 12, 2001
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


In the underlying claim, it is asserted that while George Deppner was working on a construction site at the Manhattan Bridge at Pier MF Panel Point 68 in Manhattan on October 7, 2000, a "ball check valve" from a defective jack went through his leg. This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the state does not own, operate or maintain the bridge and that claimant has failed to adequately describe the accident pursuant to §11 of the Court of Claims Act. Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Osama Khalil, Claims Engineer in the New York City 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 Manhattan Bridge is owned and maintained by the City of New York. See ¶3 of the November 9, 2000 affidavit of Osama Khalil (the "Khalil Aff.") and attached "Bridge Identification." Khalil goes on to state that there was no state construction contract in effect with claimant's employer on the date and location alleged in the claim and that claimant did not work for the state or its contractors on that date. Khalil adds that the City of New York did have a contract in effect with claimant's employer on the date and location in question and attaches a City accident report as to the incident involving Deppner. Claimants do not controvert any of these assertions, having submitted no opposition papers.

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.

In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to reach the remaining ground for defendant's motion. Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion be granted and claim no. 103249 be dismissed.

January 12, 2001
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]Aside from the claim, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion and accompanying affirmation with Exhibits A-B (Exhibit B being the Khalil Aff.). Claimants submitted no papers on this motion.