[caption id="attachment_21891" align="alignnone" width="620"]

Breezy Point in Queens after Hurricane Sandy and fires damaged the area.[/caption] ALBANY — Lawsuits accusing the Long Island Power Authority, LILCO and National Grid Electrical Services of negligence over fires that destroyed dozens of homes in Queens during Superstorm Sandy in 2012 can proceed, New York’s highest court ruled Tuesday. In a 6-0 ruling, New York’s Court of Appeals rejected LIPA’s request to dismiss lawsuits filed by homeowners on Breezy Point who allege that LIPA was negligent by failing to shut off power to the electrical grid to the peninsula before the October 2012 storm. According to court documents, Con Edison, the power supplier for most of the five boroughs, did so pre-emptively. By failing to turn off the power to the Rockaway Peninsula, the surge of salt water made contact with live power lines resulting in a conflagration that destroyed more than 100 homes, plaintiffs allege. LIPA had argued that it was immune from liability because the actions that were exercised during the storm were in LIPA’s governmental capacity, and were discretionary. The ruling by the Court of Appeals affirms a decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims. The appellate division held that LIPA wasn't entitled to governmental immunity because providing electricity is "properly categorized as a proprietary function" and that providing electricity and responding to a hurricane are "part of the proprietary core functions of electric utilities." In the Court of Appeals opinion, No. 11 Connolly v. Long Island Power Authority, No. 12 Baumann v. Long Island Power Authority, No. 13 Heeran v. Long Island Power Authority, Associate Justice Leslie Stein wrote, "because defendants have not met their threshold burden of demonstrating that the action was governmental in the context of these pre-answer, pre-discovery CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motions, we cannot say that the complaints fail to state causes of action as a matter of law. We therefore affirm," the lower court's decision, Stein wrote. "Inasmuch as defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish that plaintiffs’ amended complaints failed to state viable claims, we hold that the courts below properly denied LIPA’s motions to dismiss. Accordingly, in each appeal, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative," Stein concluded. Brian Shoot, a member of Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, the personal injury firm that represented several residents of the Rockaway Peninsula, said in a phone interview Tuesday morning that he was “very pleased” with the court’s decision. The next step is the completion of discovery to find out who was responsible for the decision not to shut off power to the area, he added. Eric Schwarz, also a member of the firm, said in a statement that “LIPAs repeated attempts to block this case from moving forward has ravaged the families and businesses who simply want their day in court.” “Today’s ruling is a step in the right direction for our clients and all those who are seeking some sort of closure on this issue so they can finally try to move on with their lives as best they can,” Schwarz added. Brian Isaac, a partner in the litigation department of Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, also represented plaintiffs in the matter. Isaac did not respond to request for comment on the decision. Zachary Murdock—a partner at Long Island-based full service law firm Lazer Aptheker Rosella & Yedid—who represented LIPA, said in email that the decision "to keep power on to critical care facilities, first responders, and people’s homes was prudent and protected under our government immunity status and will continue to present our position in court." Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Rowan Wilson and Paul Feinman concurred with Stein’s opinion. Associate Judge Jenny Rivera, who concurred with the majority’s decision, wrote separately to say that while she agreed that the “defendants failed to carry their burden on the motion,” she “disagreed with the majority’s suggestion that defendants may be able to establish an affirmative defense of immunity at some later stage in this litigation.” “The majority essentially invites the parties to engage in further motion on practice on defendants’ purported entitlement to immunity. In doing so, it encourages the parties to incur unwarranted litigation costs and needlessly expend judicial resources on an argument that has no possibility of success,” Rivera wrote. Associate Judge Eugene Fahey concurred with Rivera’s opinion. Associate Judge Michael Garcia took no part.