Ciferri v. State
| Decision Date | 17 March 1986 |
| Parties | Roderick W. CIFERRI, III, et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Iannuzzi, Russo & Iannuzzi, New York City (Elizabeth A. Bannon and John Nicholas Iannuzzi, of counsel), for appellants.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., (Andrea Green, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BROWN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, NIEHOFF and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), entered November 7, 1984, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5).
Order affirmed, with costs.
The criminal charges underlying the claimants' cause of action for malicious prosecution were dismissed in their entirety on July 26, 1983. The claimants timely filed a notice of intention to file a claim on October 13, 1983. However, they did not file the claim itself until August 9, 1984. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim as barred by the Statute of Limitations.
In suing the State for an intentional tort committed by its employees, the claimants are bound by the one-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 215 (see, Trayer v. State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 263, 268, 458 N.Y.S.2d 262; Pappalardo v. State of New York, 109 A.D.2d 873, 487 N.Y.S.2d 65). This period begins to run upon dismissal of the charges by the trial court (see, Karen v. State of New York, 111 Misc.2d 396, 399-400, 444 N.Y.S.2d 381; Marks v. Townsend, 97 N.Y. 590, 595). Therefore, the claimants' failure to file their claim for malicious prosecution within one year of the dismissal of the criminal charges against them bars their claim as untimely.
The claimants' contention that their timely notice of intention to file a claim should be treated as a claim itself is without merit because the notice does not contain the necessary information (see, Court of Claims Act § 11; Pappalardo v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Sarlat v. State of New York, 119 Misc.2d 369, 370, 462 N.Y.S.2d 788).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heron v. Strader
...v. Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740 (1979); Allee v. New York, 42 A.D.2d 899, 347 N.Y.S.2d 708 (1973); cf. Ciferri v. State, 118 A.D.2d 676, 500 N.Y.S.2d 28 (1986) (holding that the statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against a state employee begins to run upo......
-
Scott v. State
...filed within one year of the dismissal of the criminal charges against the appellant and was thus timely (see, Ciferri v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 676, 500 N.Y.S.2d 28; cf., Zagarella v. State of New York, supra ), the court properly determined that the claim failed to state a cause of......
-
Ragland v. New York City Housing Authority
...prosecution did not accrue until November 7, 1991, when the charges were dismissed by the Criminal Court (see, Ciferri v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 676, 500 N.Y.S.2d 28). Using these accrual dates, the petitioner had until November 11, 1991, to serve a notice of claim as to the false ar......
- Capichiano v. Montefiore Hosp.