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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·No. Claim No. 80362·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

186 A.D.2d 1028 (Shoemaker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related