New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SABBAGH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-016-051, Claim No. 110658, Motion No. M-70175


Synopsis


Labor Law claim was dismissed as State did not own, operate or have other nexus with accident site.

Case Information

UID:
2005-016-051
Claimant(s):
CHRISTOPHER SABBAGH
Claimant short name:
SABBAGH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110658
Motion number(s):
M-70175
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Sacks and Sacks, LLPNo Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 1, 2005
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Christopher Sabbagh, in which it is alleged that on December 27, 2004, claimant was injured while working for his employer Tully Construction at the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island when he slipped and fell on snow and ice. Defendant has submitted an affidavit and other documentation indicating that the landfill is owned and operated by the New York City Department of Sanitation. See exhibit B to defendant's moving papers. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the City of New York. See, e.g., Torres v State of New York, Ct Cl June 29, 2001 (unreported, claim no. 95365, motion no. M-63437, Read, J., UID #2001-001-036[1]).

Having submitted no opposition papers, claimant does not dispute defendant's assertions. In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-70175 be granted and claim no. 110658 be dismissed.


August 1, 2005
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the Court's website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
  2. [2]The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.