Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100608_0004475.NY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 06:56:50
Document Index: 412921972

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1220', '§ 241', '§ 52', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 2']

"[e]xcept in connection with the construction, reconstruction, maintenance or improvement of a state highway, no person, firm, corporation, municipality, or state department or agency shall... lay or maintain [within the State highway right-of-way] underground wires or conduits or drainage, sewer or water pipes, except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a work permit issued by the commissioner of transportation" (see also Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 1220-c ["[e]xcept in connection with the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or improvement of a state highway, no person shall work on a state highway without a work permit issued by the state commissioner of transportation"]; 17 NYCRR 126.2 [a], [b] [a work permit must be secured "to temporarily obstruct or to install, construct, maintain or operate any facilities within the bounds of a State highway right-of-way, " including "excavating... or work of a like nature under, or over or along the highway"]).
By decision and order dated October 21, 2002, the Court of Claims dismissed claimant's negligence claims because the State lacked actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition and did not exercise supervision or control over the worksite. The court also denied claimant's motion and the State's cross motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The judge concluded that Highway Law § 52 did not insulate the State from liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) because this provision "imposed a nondelegable duty upon 'owners' to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in excavation work regardless of the absence of control, supervision or direction of the work." He did find, however, that material questions of fact existed as to soil composition and the excavation's depth, which implicated the applicability of the Industrial Code sections relied upon by claimant.
In December 2004, the Appellate Division dismissed the State's appeal from the interlocutory judgment as academic; reversed, on the law, the portion of the Court of Claims' order that denied the State's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the section 241 (6) claim; granted the State summary judgment on and dismissed that claim; and vacated the interlocutory judgment (13 A.D.3d 498');">13 A.D.3d 498 [2d Dept 2004]). Citing Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc. (3 N.Y.3d 46');">3 N.Y.3d 46, 51 [2004]), the court reasoned that the
"State is not liable... under Labor Law § 241 (6) because the claimant was not within the class of persons afforded protection under the statute. Since [the water company] failed to obtain a highway work permit in violation of state law... [the water company] and the claimant trespassed on the State's property in performing excavation and repairs on the state highway... Since the claimant was performing work without the State's permission or knowledge, he was not a person 'employed' at a work site within the meaning of the Labor Law, which defines such an individual as one 'permitted or suffered to work' (Labor Law § 2 [7])" (13 A.D.3d at 500 [citations omitted]).
We granted claimant permission to appeal, [1] ...