From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shoemaker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Court of Claims, Quigley, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


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 A.D.2d 412, 414-416; see also, Celestine v City of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 938, affg for reasons stated at App. Div. 86 A.D.2d 592; Sperber v Penn Cent. Corp., 150 A.D.2d 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.


Summaries of

Shoemaker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Shoemaker v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES R. SHOEMAKER et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 480

Citing Cases

Rogers v. County of Niagara

Plaintiff was injured when the wall of an excavation trench caved in on him. Labor Law § 240 (1) does not…

Robert Wallin v. City of N.Y

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's cross…