Opinion
# 2021-032-043 Claim No. 134177 Motion No. M-96300
04-28-2021
STEVEN QUINLAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Edelman Krasin and Jaye PLLC By: Monica P. Becker, Esq. Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, AAG
Synopsis
The claim is dismissed. Defendant does not operate, manage or maintain location within Hudson River Park where accident occurred.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-043 |
| Claimant(s): | STEVEN QUINLAN |
| Claimant short name: | QUINLAN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134177 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96300 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Edelman Krasin and Jaye PLLC By: Monica P. Becker, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 28, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant filed the instant claim on December 18, 2019 seeking damages for injuries sustained when he fell on the roadway/walkway located in front of the Circle Line Pier 83 Parking at West 42nd Street in the City of New York. Defendant brought a pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the State does not own, operate or maintain the Hudson River Park. Claimant opposed the motion on the ground that defendant failed to submit an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the entity that owns and operates the subject property. By Decision and Order, dated December 1, 2020, the Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the claim. Defendant now moves again to dismiss the claim on the ground that the State does not operate or maintain the Hudson River Park. Claimant opposes the motion.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction with the power to hear claims against the State of New York for the torts of its officers or employees (see NY Const Art VI; Court of Claims Act § 9), and other specified entities. Here, counsel for defendant states that the Hudson River Park Trust [the Trust]--a public benefit corporation--operates and maintains the subject property (Affirmation of Lawrence E. Kozar, AAG ¶ 5), and argues that the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Trust (see Bello v State of New York, UID No. 2017-053-528 [Ct Cl, Sampson, J., June 26, 2017]). In support of defendant's argument, defendant submits the affidavit of Ralph W. Hill, Real Estate Officer 1 employed by the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) in the State Asset and Land Management Division (Kozar Aff., Exhibit C). One of Hill's principal responsibilities is determining the boundaries of all lands owned by the State of New York (Hill Aff. ¶ 2). Hill reviewed the files and records maintained by OGS and determined that "the parking lot at the Circle Line, Pier 83, West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036" was not "operate[d], manage[d], or maintain[ed]" by the State of New York on the date of the accident--January 9, 2018 (Hill Aff. ¶ 3). Claimant argues that the Court should deny the motion because the State has not refuted ownership of the property.
Unpublished decisions and selected orders of the Court of Claims are available at http://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
Pier 83 is listed as a pier located within the Hudson River Park (https://hudsonriverpark.org/the-park/piers-and-places/). --------
The State of New York and City of New York jointly own portions of the Hudson River Park (Costa v State of New York, 141 AD3d 43, 45 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d [2017]). "The Hudson River Park Act, by its explicit terms, does not alter ownership and title to the property" (id., citing former McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 1647 [3] [a] [emphasis in original]). The First Department in Costa v State of New York, examined the legislative history of the Hudson River Park Act and found that, prior to 2013, "the legislature intended the Trust to succeed to all the State's legal obligations arising out of its ownership of park property" (Costa, supra at 48). Following a 2013 amendment to the Hudson River Park Act, the State is now obligated to indemnify and defend the Trust for claims for bodily injury that occur in State-owned portions of the Park (id., citing L 2013, ch 517, § 5). But the Trust remains the sole entity amenable to suit for injuries that occur within the Park as a result of the Trust's duty to operate and maintain the Park, notwithstanding State ownership of the subject location (see Botfeld v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-071 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., Aug. 30, 2018]).
Because the State has established that it did not operate manage or maintain the location where claimant sustained injuries (see generally Hill Aff.), and because the Hudson River Park Trust is not an entity that can be sued in the Court of Claims, the claim must be dismissed (Lapshina v State of New York, UID No. 2018-028-520 [Ct Cl, Sise, J., Nov. 19, 2018]; Andrews v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-020 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Apr. 23, 2012]).
To the extent that claimant cites cases to support its argument that the State may have been involved in the maintenance of the subject location, such cases are clearly distinguishable. In both Bello v State of New York, UID No. 2017-053-528 [Ct Cl, Sampson, J., June 26, 2017] and Givotovsky v State of New York, UID No. 2013-016-015 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., Mar. 28, 2013], the claimants submitted evidence of active New York State Department of Transportation [DOT] projects occurring at the subject locations of those claims on the dates that the claims arose. No such allegation of an active DOT repair project exists here.
Based upon the foregoing, its hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the claim (M-96300) is GRANTED. Claim number 134177 is DISMISSED.
April 28, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Motion, dated December 10, 2020; and Affirmation in Support, affirmed by Lawrence E. Kozar, AAG on December 10, 2020, with Exhibits A through C annexed thereto. 2. Affirmation in Opposition, affirmed by Monica P. Becker, Esq. on January 26, 2021.