New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PREDMORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-009-62, Claim No. 108928, Motion No. M-68884


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for an order dismissing the claim brought pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 was granted in that there was no State involvement in the construction project.

Case Information

UID:
2004-009-62
Claimant(s):
PATRICIA PREDMORE
Claimant short name:
PREDMORE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108928
Motion number(s):
M-68884
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
MICHAEL P. KENNY, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Timothy P. Mulvey, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 14, 2004
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Defendant has brought this motion seeking an order dismissing the claim.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation, with Exhibits 1,2

In her filed claim (see Exhibit A), claimant seeks damages against the State based upon alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241. In this motion, defendant seeks to dismiss this claim, contending that the State was not a party to the contract for the project on which claimant was working when she was injured. Claimant has not submitted any papers in opposition to this motion.

In its motion, defendant has submitted a copy of the contract between Tompkins County and Economy Paving Company, Inc. (Claimant's employer). The contract relates to the replacement of a bridge on County Road 113 in the Town of Caroline in Tompkins County. There are no indications whatsoever that the State was either an owner of the premises, or a party to the contract.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 8 and 9, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to actions against the State (as well as certain public authorities not applicable herein). Since there is no indication of any State involvement whatsoever in this project, the Court must find that it does not have any jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-68884 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Claim No. 108928 is hereby DISMISSED.


October 14, 2004
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims