In Konviser v. State of New York (180 Misc. 2d 174) [1999], it was concluded that, after a transition period, there would never be any claimants who fit this definition, and the amendment was, in effect, a repeal by implication of Section 10(8). While recognizing that the continued presence of Subdivision 8 within the statute could well constitute a "classic trap for the unwary," the court took the position that it is "the role of the Legislature and not the courts to clarify the language of the statute" (id., at 180).