Clapp v. State

Jun 10, 2005
Claim No. 107042; Appeal No. 2
Versions:19 A.D.3d 1113
796 N.Y.S.2d 281

PETER CLAPP et al., Respondents, v STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 107042.) DARLENE S. PELTON, Individually and as Guardian of GARRET L. PELTON, an Incapacitated Person, Respondent, v STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 107111.) (Appeal No. 1.) [796 NYS2d 281]—Appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Richard E. Sise, J.), entered April 27, 2004. The order, among other things, granted those parts of the motions of claimants seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their respective Labor Law § 240 (1) claims and denied defendant‘s respective cross motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6).

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 [1988]; Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

PETER CLAPP et al., Respondents, v STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 107042.) (Appeal No. 2.) [796 NYS2d 281]—Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Richard E. Sise, J.), entered May 4, 2004. The interlocutory judgment ordered that a trial on the issue of damages be scheduled.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In each appeal, defendant contends that the Court of Claims erred in granting those parts of the motions of the respective claimants herein seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their respective Labor Law § 240 (1) claims and in denying those parts of defendant‘s respective cross motions seeking summary judgment dismissing those claims. This issue was previously before us on appeals by defendant with respect to the claimants in other actions arising from the same accident, i.e., the collapse of the bridge on which the claimants were working, and we affirm the judgments herein for the reasons stated in our prior decision in Bradford v State of New York (17 AD3d 995 [2005]). We further conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on those parts of its respective cross motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims (see id.). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.