New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DECOTEAU v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-030-910, Claim No. 109915, Motion No. M-69745


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-030-910
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL DECOTEAU
Claimant short name:
DECOTEAU
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109915
Motion number(s):
M-69745
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
Kenneth Sacks, Esq.(no appearance)
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney Generalby Ellen Matowik, Assistant Attorney general
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 7, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The court read and considered the following papers on defendant's motion for dismissal


or summary judgment: Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits.

Claimant was allegedly injured on a construction job at Pier 95 at 55th Street and 12th Avenue in Manhattan. Defendant moves for dismissal or summary judgment on the ground that it is not responsible for the subject site.

Defendant alleges that the subject location is part of the Hudson River Park, operated by the Hudson River Park Trust, an entity distinct from the State of New York. As defendant contends, actions against the Hudson River Park Trust are brought in supreme court pursuant to the notice of claim procedure set forth in the General Municipal Law. Claimant has not responded to the motion.

The conclusion that the party potentially responsible for claimant's injuries is not subject to the jurisdiction of this court does not mean that the court lacks jurisdiction over the pending action (which was brought against the State of New York, over whom the court does have jurisdiction, not against the Hudson River Park Trust). Rather, the appropriate conclusion is that the pending action is, as a matter of substantive law, without merit since the defendant is without any potential liability.

Accordingly, the motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but granted insofar as it seeks summary judgment. The clerk is directed to close the file.


March 7, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims