Baisley v. Town of Kent, Putnam County
| Decision Date | 20 May 1985 |
| Citation | 111 A.D.2d 299,489 N.Y.S.2d 539 |
| Parties | Robert J. BAISLEY, etc., et al., Appellants, v. The TOWN OF KENT, COUNTY OF PUTNAM, State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph Hausman, Brooklyn (Judith Greenspan, Flushing, of counsel), for appellants.
Thomas J. Costello, County Atty., Carmel (William A. Shilling, Jr., Deputy Co. Atty., Carmel, on the brief), for respondents County of Putnam and Putnam County Board of Health.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated August 19, 1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants "without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims".
Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied.
This is an action by residents of the Lake Carmel area of Putnam County to recover damages from the County of Putnam, the Putnam County Board of Health and the Town of Kent for their failure to inform plaintiffs of the contamination of their private water wells by certain toxic petroleum derivatives which resulted in injury to plaintiffs when they ingested the water. Plaintiffs have also brought a claim against the State of New York in the Court of Claims due to the statutory designation of the New York State Department of Transportation as the agency responsible for the prevention, control and clean-up of oil discharges which threaten the environment within the State, whatever the source and regardless of fault (Navigation Law art. 12). Upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and the Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them on the ground that the State of New York is an essential party but could not be joined for lack of jurisdiction, Special Term dismissed the complaint as against all defendants "without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims".
The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction of claims against the State and its agencies and the State cannot,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ott v. Barash
... ... the Planting Fields Arboretum in Oyster Bay, Nassau County. It is alleged in the plaintiff's first cause of action ... 64 N.Y.2d 143, 485 N.Y.S.2d 27, 474 N.E.2d 235; Baisley v. Town of Kent, App.Div., 489 N.Y.S.2d 539) ... ...
-
Eberhard v. Incorporated Vill. of Port Jefferson
... ... OF POQUOTT, THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF OLD FIELD, THE TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, THE PORT JEFFERSON HARBOR COMPLEX, THE PORT JEFFERSON HARBOR COMMISSION, THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STONY ... [1988]; Baisley v. Town of Kent, Putnam Cty., 111 ... A.D.2d 299, ... ...
-
Cassidy v. Madoff
... ... 28 U.S.C. 1257. In Hoblock v ... Albany County Board of Elections , the Second Circuit outlined the "four ... (quoting Spear v ... Town of West Hartford , 954 F.2d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1992)). A ... of claims against the State and its agencies." Baisley v ... Town of Kent , 111 A.D.2d 299, 300 (2d Dep't 1985) ... ...
-
Artibee v. Home Place Corp.
... ... (Krogmann, J.), entered November 10, 2014 in Warren County, which, among other things, denied defendant's motion in ... between defendant and the State (see generally Baisley v. Town of Kent, 111 A.D.2d 299, 300, 489 N.Y.S.2d 539 ... ...