Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STEPHEN TURNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained during the course of his employment as a locomotive engineer by defendants. Plaintiff asserted two causes of action against defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. based on its alleged violations of the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act ( [LIA] 49 USC § 20701 et seq.) and the Federal Employers' Liability Act ( [FELA] 45 USC § 51 et seq.) with respect to injuries that he sustained as a result of the excessive lateral motion of the locomotive that he was operating on September 5, 2003. Plaintiff also asserted two causes of action based on defendants' alleged violations of the LIA and the FELA with respect to injuries that were allegedly sustained over the course of his employment as a result of his continuous exposure to excess vibration and lateral motion of the locomotives.
Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and Supreme Court granted the motion in part by dismissing the fourth cause of action, which alleged occupational injuries based on defendants' violation of the LIA. A jury trial on the remaining causes of action was held, and plaintiff was awarded over $2.7 million in damages. Following the trial, the order granting the motion in part was entered October 9, 2008, and plaintiff appeals from that order. A final judgment was entered November 18, 2008 and an amended judgment was entered March 4, 2009. Plaintiff has conceded that, if we affirm the amended judgment from which plaintiff also appealed (Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc. [appeal No. 5], _ AD3d _ [Apr. 30, 2010] ), this appeal would be moot. Inasmuch as we are affirming the amended judgment (id.), we dismiss this appeal as moot.
All concur except Hurlbutt, J., who is not participating.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 09-00073
Decided: April 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)