New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KEELING v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-017, Claim No. 109682, Motion No. M-69516


Synopsis


Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss is granted. The State is not a proper party defendant.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-017
Claimant(s):
TOMMIE KEELING AND MARIZIA KEELING
Claimant short name:
KEELING
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109682
Motion number(s):
M-69516
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
SACKS AND SACKS, LLP
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Vincent Cascio, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 21, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits

The claim arises out of an accident that occurred on July 21, 2004 on the Tappan Zee Bridge. Tommie Keeling was allegedly injured while working on a scaffold. The claim of Marizia Keeling is derivative. The basis for the claim against the State is that it owned, operated, managed and controlled the accident site (Ex. A). Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that the State is not a proper party defendant. In support of its unopposed motion, defendant submits the affidavit of Thomas Mason, the Assistant Resident Engineer of the Westchester County Residency, New York State Department of Transportation (Ex. B). The affidavit states that the State does not own, operate, manage or control the Tappan Zee Bridge or I87, i.e., the site of the accident. Accordingly, no remedy can be had against the State regarding the allegations of this claim.[1]

On the papers before this Court, defendant has made a sufficient showing to warrant dismissal of the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and(a)(8) (see Kisloff v State of New York, 248 AD2d 680).

Motion GRANTED dismissing Claim No. 109682.


March 21, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] Notably, claimants have another claim, based upon the same allegations, pending against the New York State Thruway Authority, Claim No. 109681.