New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DIGUGLIELMO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-009, Claim No. 104985, Motion No. M-64312


Synopsis


Claim alleging that claimant was injured in construction project at the Manhattan Bridge was dismissed as bridge is owned and maintained by the City of New York.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-009
Claimant(s):
FREDRICK DIGUGLIELMO
Claimant short name:
DIGUGLIELMO
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104985
Motion number(s):
M-64312
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 24, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In the underlying claim, it is asserted that Fredrick Diguglielmo was injured while working "at premises under construction at the Manhattan Bridge" in the borough of Manhattan. This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the state does not own, operate or maintain the bridge. 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. Khalil states that he reviewed the Department's records, which show that the Manhattan Bridge is owned and maintained by the City of New York. He goes on to state that there were no state construction contracts in effect 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 on the date and location in question. See ¶3 of the October 17, 2001 affidavit of Osama Khalil and the attached "Bridge Identification." Claimant does 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 §62224.4), the City of New York is not one of these entities. See also Weber v State of New York, Ct Cl filed 5/7/01, Nadel J. (unreported, claim no. 103829, motion no. M-63295) and Deppner v State of New York, Ct Cl filed 1/23/01, Marin J. (unreported, claim no. 103249, motion no. M-62781), in which claims involving accidents on Manhattan Bridge construction projects were dismissed.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64312 be granted and claim no. 104985 be dismissed.



January 24, 2002
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Along with the claim, the following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-C. Claimant filed no opposition papers.