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.
William BAUMANN, et al., respondents, v. LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendants Long Island Power Authority and Long Island Lighting Company appeal, and the defendant National Grid Electric Services, LLC, separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Siegal, J.), entered July 14, 2014, which denied their joint motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the Long Island Power Authority (hereinafter LIPA), a public authority (see Public Authorities Law § 1020 et seq.), the Long Island Lighting Company (hereinafter LILCO), previously a private electric company and now allegedly a wholly owned subsidiary of LIPA, and National Grid Electric Services, LLC (hereinafter NGES and collectively with LIPA and LILCO, the defendants), LIPA's private contractor responsible for operating LIPA's electrical transmission and distribution system. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for the destruction of their real and personal property located on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens, which they allege occurred because the defendants negligently failed to preemptively de-energize the Rockaway Peninsula prior to or during Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that LIPA was immune from liability based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity, and that LILCO and NGES were entitled to the same governmental immunity defense as LIPA. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants appeal.
The denial of the defendants' motion was proper for the reasons stated in Heeran v. Long Is. Power Auth. (LIPA) (––– AD3d –––– [decided herewith] ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.
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.
Decided: July 13, 2016
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)