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)
|
|
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.
