Source: http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2006-016-030.html
Timestamp: 2018-06-25 00:32:53
Document Index: 690050380

Matched Legal Cases: ['§200', '§40', '§11', '§361', '§6224', '§1007', '§1699']

QUICK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, GREENPOINT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, 111779
QUICK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, GREENPOINT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, #2006-016-030, Claim No. 111779, Motion No. M-71237
2006-016-030
ELAHN BEN ISRAEL QUICK
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, GREENPOINT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
M-71237
Stefano A. Filippazzo, P.C.No Appearance
This is defendant State of New York’s motion to dismiss the claim of Elahn Ben Israel Quick. In his claim, which alleges violations of Labor Law §§200, 240.1 and 241.6, Mr. Quick alleges that he fell from an elevated height while in the course of his employment on a construction project at Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center (“Woodhull”)[1] at 760 Broadway in Brooklyn. The basis of the State’s motion is its assertion that Woodhull is not a State hospital, but rather is “under the jurisdiction of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation . . . ” See ¶5 of the January 30, 2006 affirmation of Ellen Matowik.	In support of such assertion, defendant submits “Lexis” and New York City Open Accessible Space Information System printouts indicating that 760 Broadway in Brooklyn is owned by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. It also submits a printout from the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation website indicating that Woodhull is one of such entity’s facilities. Defendant has also submitted property records indicating that the site is owned by the Health and Hospitals Corporation. See exhibits B and C to defendant’s moving papers. Claimant, having submitted no opposition papers, does not dispute that Woodhull is under the auspices of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. See, e.g., Ledson v State of New York, Ct Cl, April 4, 2005 (unreported, claim no. 110385, motion no. M-69798, Marin, J., UID #2005-016-028[2]).
As for the named defendant New York State Housing Finance Agency (see Private Housing Finance Law §40 et seq.), the Court of Claims Act only grants this Court jurisdiction over certain suits against the State of New York and other public entities where authorized by statute. The State Housing Finance Agency is not one of these entities. See §11.a (ii) of the Court of Claims Act; Public Authorities Law §361-b (the New York State Thruway Authority); Education Law §6224.4 (the senior colleges of the City University of New York); and Public Authorities Law §1007.10 (the New York State Power Authority).
Claimant also names the Health and Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Corporation, predecessor to the State of New York Facilities Development Corporation. See, e.g., State of New York Facilities Development Corporation v Kallman, etc., 121 AD2d 805, 504 NYS2d 557 (3d Dept 1986). On September 1, 1995, the Facilities Development Corporation was consolidated into the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York. See §1699-f of the Public Authorities Law. For the reasons stated above, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the Dormitory Authority. See also, e.g., Quilliam v State of New York, Ct Cl, August 17, 2000 (unreported, motion no. M- 61944, Marin, J., UID #2000-016-062).
In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[3], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-71237 be granted and claim no. 111779 be dismissed.
[1]Woodhull was formerly known as Greenpoint Medical Center, which presumably explains the claim’s various references to “Greenpoint Medical and Mental Health Center.” See, e.g., State of New York Facilities Development Corporation v Kallman, etc., infra.
[3]The Court reviewed defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through D. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.