Legal Opinion
Hotchkiss v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 3, 1996PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*414The claimant seeks to impose liability on the appellant pursuant to Labor Law § 200 (1), § 240, and § 241 (6). The Court of Claims granted the appellant’s motion to dismiss the claim to the extent of dismissing so much of the claim as is based on Labor Law § 241 (6).
We agree with the appellant that so much of the claim as is based on Labor Law § 240 should also have been dismissed inasmuch as the present case is governed by the principles of Federal maritime law (see, Tompkins v Port of N. Y. Auth., 217 AD2d 269; Torres v City of New York, 177 AD2d 97, lv denied 80 NY2d 759, cert denied 507…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Torres v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Stuto v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Tompkins v. Port of New York AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Irvin v. Amerada Hess Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rigopoulos v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997