even in the absence of otherwise mandated safety protocols and procedures. However, as the emergency condition fades, as the rights and obligations of persons and entities engaged in the response effort become regulated by contract, as procedures and protocols are implemented to protect against potential dangers, the need for immunity diminishes and the obligations and duties otherwise imposed once again must be protected. There is no bright-line demarcation between that which is emergent and that which is done in the more normal course. In a jurisdictional setting, I proposed to create a two-week period after September 11, to September 29, 2001, at which time, pursuant to order of the Mayor, efforts turned from rescue of victims to clearance of debris. See Hickey, 270 F.Supp.2d at 374 (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals, however, disapproved of
holding that new york law applies to this matter holding that section 408 of air safety act extended to claims brought by workers for respiratory injuries suffered during rescue and cleanup efforts at the wtc after attacks holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action  holding that causes of action of workers claiming respiratory injury arose under the air transportation safety and system stabilization act before september 29 2001 and under new york state law thereafter holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law