Shoemaker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shoemaker v. State

186 A.D.2d 1028, 588 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11595

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

DocketClaim No. 80362

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1028 (Shoemaker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shoemaker v. State, 186 A.D.2d 1028, 588 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and claim reinstated. Memorandum: Although the Facilities Development Corporation had possession and control of the property upon which claimant James R. Shoemaker was injured, the State of New York is not relieved of its liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 as an owner of the property (see, Kerr v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 113 AD2d 412, 414-416; see also, Celestine v City of New York, 59 NY2d 938, affg for reasons stated at App Div 86 AD2d 592; Sperber v Penn Cent. Corp., 150 AD2d 356). Because the State of New York acquired the property in its own name, and because it did not present proof showing that it was not the owner of the property at the time claimant was injured, it was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim. (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — Dismiss Claim.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and claim reinstated. Memorandum: Although the Facilities Development Corporation had possession and control of the property upon which claimant James R. Shoemaker was injured, the State of New York is not relieved of its liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 as an owner of the property (see, Kerr v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 113 AD2d 412, 414-416; see also, Celestine v City of New York, 59 NY2d 938, affg for reasons stated at App Div 86 AD2d 592; Sperber v Penn Cent. Corp., 150 AD2d 356). Because the State of New York acquired the property in its own name, and because it did not present proof showing that it was not the owner of the property at the time claimant was injured, it was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim. (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — Dismiss Claim.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1028, 588 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemaker-v-state-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack