New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VERDEJO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-026, Claim No. 105043, Motion Nos. M-64346, CM-64432


Synopsis


Labor law claim was dismissed on grounds that there was no state nexus with accident site.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-026
Claimant(s):
RAFAEL VERDEJO
Claimant short name:
VERDEJO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105043
Motion number(s):
M-64346
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-64432
Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Connors & Connors, P.C.By: John P. Connors, Jr.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 7, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

According to the claim of Rafael Verdejo, he was involved in a work-related accident at premises known as 141 Livingston Street in Kings County. Mr. Verdejo asserts that defendant violated various sections of the Labor Law. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the grounds that there is no State nexus to the building and that the claim fails to comply with the specificity requirements of §11 of the Court of Claims Act. Claimant cross-moves to amend the claim such that it complies with §11. Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Thomas J. Lotito, Coordinator, Department of Facilities Management, New York State Office of Court Administration, who is responsible for planning and leasing court facilities for the Unified Court System. Lotito states that 141 Livingston Street is a privately owned building wherein space is leased for the Civil Court. The provision of judicial facilities is essentially a local function. See Public Authorities Law

§§1680-b and 1680-c. See also 1996 McKinney's Session Laws p. 2618 for ch. 686; see §5 of ch. 686 for the April 1, 1998 effective date of Judiciary Law §39-b (prior to April 1, 1998, "counties and cities, including New York City, [were] responsible for the provision of ‘suitable and sufficient' facilities for use by the State's major trial courts.") As of April 1, 1998, one aspect of that responsibility was transferred to the State -- the cleaning of the interior of court facilities (subd. 2 of Judiciary Law §39-b). As Verdejo's accident did not involve the cleaning of the courthouse, no duty on the part of the State is implicated. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim of Rafael Verdejo and the §11 issues raised by the parties need not be addressed.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64346 be granted, cross-motion no. CM-64432 be denied, and claim no. 105043 be dismissed.



March 7, 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 and B; and claimant's notice of cross-motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-D.