From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irvin v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1993
191 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 8, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).


Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was injured on March 6, 1985, while he was engaged in "backfilling * * * performed to strengthen [a] dock and bulkhead". His job was to guide a bucket which was suspended from a crane mounted on a floating scow. At one point, the bucket struck the plaintiff's ankle and caused him to suffer a bimalleolar fracture.

We agree with the Supreme Court that Federal maritime law applies to this case pursuant to the Admiralty Jurisdiction Extension Act of 1948 (46 U.S.C. § 740; see, Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206; Torres v. City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 97, 101-102; Huser v. Santa Fe Pomeroy, 513 F.2d 1298; Tucker v Calmar S.S. Corp., 457 F.2d 440; Thompson v. Calmar S.S. Corp., 331 F.2d 657, cert denied 379 U.S. 913; Annotation, Admiralty Extension Act, 14 ALR Fed 664, § 24). Contrary to the plaintiff's argument on appeal, we find that there was a sufficient nexus between the happening of this accident and a traditional maritime activity, i.e., the repairing of a dock (see, e.g., Torres v. City of New York, supra; Duncanson-Harrelson v. Director, Off. of Workers' Compensation, 644 F.2d 827; Duncanson-Harrelson v. Director, Off. of Workers' Compensation Programs, 686 F.2d 1336, vacated on other grounds 462 U.S. 1101, on remand 713 F.2d 462; Wistrom v. Duluth, Missabe Iron Range Ry. Co., 437 N.W.2d 730 [Minn]). Contrary to the plaintiff's additional argument, we conclude that the existence of Federal maritime jurisdiction in this case precludes application of the New York Labor Law (§§ 200, 240 [1]; § 241 [6]; see, Torres v. City of New York, supra; Stuto v. Coastal Dry Dock Repair Corp., 153 A.D.2d 937). Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed insofar as appealed from. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Irvin v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1993
191 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Irvin v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HUEY IRVIN, Appellant-Respondent, v. AMERADA HESS CORP. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 324

Citing Cases

Tompkins v. Port of N.Y. Auth

(2) There is a maritime nexus, that is, the plaintiff's accident arises out of some traditional maritime…

Salazar-Torres v. GMD Shipyard Corp.

( citing, Rigopoulos v. State of New York, 236 AD2d 459 and McDonald v. City of New York, 231 AD2d 556). The…