New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HAYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-036-501, Claim No. 111291, Motion No. M-70846


Synopsis


Motion to dismiss granted - State does not own accident site.

Case Information

UID:
2006-036-501
Claimant(s):
THOMAS HAYES
1 1.The court has amended the caption to remove the unnecessary reference to the New York State Department of Transportation.
Claimant short name:
HAYES
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The court has amended the caption to remove the unnecessary reference to the New York State Department of Transportation.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111291
Motion number(s):
M-70846
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Claimant’s attorney:
Hecht & Hecht, LLP(no appearance)
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Ellen Matowik Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 18, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision


This claim, served and filed on August 26, 2005, alleges that claimant was injured on June 13, 2005, when his motorcycle “came in contact” with a raised cement divider on Third Avenue, just south of its intersection with 65th Street, in Brooklyn. The claim is based on claimant’s allegations, upon information and belief, that the State of New York owned, operated, maintained and controlled Third Avenue at the subject location.

In its answer, defendant alleged that the State does not own, operate or maintain the site of the accident. Defendant now moves for dismissal and/or summary judgment on such ground. In support of the motion, defendant submits the affidavit of Leroy White, a real estate officer with the State Department of Transportation, who alleges that Third Avenue and 65th Street are City of New York streets, not owned by the State, that they were never a part of the State arterial system and that there were no State construction contracts in effect at the subject location on the date of claimant’s accident. Thus, defendant concludes, the State cannot be liable for claimant’s accident since it had no responsibility for the roadway in question.

Claimant has not submitted any papers in opposition to the motion and it appears that the defendant’s contentions are meritorious. Accordingly, defendant having established the validity of its defense, the court finds that it is entitled to summary judgment of dismissal. The motion is granted and the clerk of the court is directed to close the file.


January 18, 2006
New York, New York

HON. MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Judge of the Court of Claims