Pandolph v. State, 84975

• Decision Date: 28 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 84975,84975
• Citation: 155 Misc.2d 612,589 N.Y.S.2d 136
• Parties: Tamara L. PANDOLPH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Scott Amsler, Claimant, v. STATE of New York, and Olympic Regional Development Authority, Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Claims

Page 136

589 N.Y.S.2d 136

155 Misc.2d 612

Tamara L. PANDOLPH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Scott Amsler, Claimant, v. STATE of New York, and Olympic Regional Development Authority, Defendants.

Claim No. 84975 Court of Claims of New York.

Sept. 28, 1992.

Timothy J. Lawliss, for claimant.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (John J. Pickett, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants.

JOHN L. BELL, Justice.

The issue before the court is whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over tort claims asserted against the Olympic Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ORDA).

On March 6, 1990, Scott Amsler died as a result of injuries sustained while skiing at Whiteface Mountain, Town of Wilmington, Essex County. Claimant was subsequently appointed administratrix of Amsler's estate and commenced the instant claim against the State of New York and ORDA seeking $10,000,000 in damages. Claimant alleges that the State owns the ski center and that ORDA operates it for the State. The attorney general asserted in the answer for the defendants that the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over ORDA. Claimant has moved to strike the jurisdictional defense from the answer, and the attorney general has cross moved to dismiss the claim as to ORDA.

At common law, the State, as sovereign, was immune from liability (Glassman v. Glassman, 309 N.Y. 436, 440, 131 N.E.2d 721; Horoch v. State of New York, 286 App.Div. 303, 304-305, 143 N.Y.S.2d 327). Conditions can thus be attached when the sovereign chooses to waive its immunity, and a condition to suing the State for damages is that the claim must be brought in the Court of Claims (Morell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297, 300, 520 N.Y.S.2d 530, 514 N.E.2d 1101; Easley v. New York State Thruway Auth., 1 N.Y.2d 374, 376-77, 153 N.Y.S.2d 28, 135 N.E.2d 572; see, Brown v. Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg, 303 N.Y. 484, 489, 104 N.E.2d 866). While exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims clearly extends to lawsuits for monetary damages arising out of acts or omissions of State agencies (Sinhogar v. Parry, 53 N.Y.2d 424, 442 N.Y.S.2d 438, 425 N.E.2d 826; Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 118 N.E.2d 584), the issue of whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over legislatively-created quasi-governmental entities is frequently a vexing question, replete with potential pitfalls for even assiduous attorneys, particularly when the Legislature remains silent regarding the jurisdictional issue in the enabling legislation of such entities (see, e.g., Bulson v. Control Data Corp., 164 A.D.2d 141, 563 N.Y.S.2d 249; Belscher v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 45 A.D.2d 206, 357 N.Y.S.2d 241). Public benefits corporations, however, while often snugly secured to the State, nevertheless do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims unless the Legislature specifically places jurisdiction in such forum (Gembala v. Audobon Assn., 97 A.D.2d 345, 346, 469 N.Y.S.2d 502; Story House Corp. v. State of New York Job Development Auth., 37 A.D.2d 345, 325 N.Y.S.2d 659, affd. 31 N.Y.2d 942, 340 N.Y.S.2d 929, 293 N.E.2d 97; see, Public Authorities Law § 361-b [exclusive jurisdiction of tort and contract claims against the State Thruway Authority is in the Court of Claims]; Public Authorities Law § 163-a [exclusive jurisdiction of tort and contract claims against the Jones Beach State Parkway Authority is in the Court of Claims]; Public Authorities Law § 1007[10] [claims for the value of property appropriated by the Power Authority of the State are to be brought in the Court of Claims].

ORDA was created in 1981 as a public benefit corporation (L.1981, ch. 404; Public Authorities Law §§ 2606, 2608[1]. It was charged with responsibility to, inter alia, "operate, manage and maintain the olympic facilities * * *" in and around the Village of Lake Placid, Essex County (Public Authorities Law § 2606). The Legislature provided that a notice of claim is a condition precedent to commencing a tort action against ORDA, and that the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e apply (Public Authorities Law § 2622[1], § 2980). Further, venue of any tort action against ORDA is statutorily set in Essex County (Public Authorities Law § 2622[3]; § 2608[8]. It is evident that by invoking the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e and setting venue in a specific county, the Legislature intended jurisdiction of lawsuits against ORDA to be in Supreme Court (see, Groener v. State of New York, Ct.Cl., March 29, 1991, E. Margolis, J.). Moreover, the absence of any statutory language placing jurisdiction for claims against this public benefit corporation in the Court of Claims establishes Supreme Court as the proper forum (see, Story House Corp. v. State of New York Job Development Auth., 37 A.D.2d 345, 325 N.Y.S.2d 659, affd. 31 N.Y.2d 942, 340 N.Y.S.2d 929, 293 N.E.2d 97, supra). The...