Cobin v. State
| Citation | 651 N.Y.S.2d 202,234 A.D.2d 498 |
| Parties | Helen COBIN, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1996 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Lynch & Toscano, P.C., Mineola, (John R. Lynch and Mark N. Aloia, of counsel), for appellants.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City, (Peter H. Schiff and Troy J. Oechsner, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN and McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered January 23, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that the notice of intention was jurisdictionally defective. Presiding Justice Mangano has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1[c] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), the notice of intention "shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, [and] the nature of same". While Court of Claims Act § 11(b) does not require absolute exactness, the statute does require a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. (Heisler v. State of New York, 78 A.D.2d 767, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646; see, Harper v. State of New York, 34 A.D.2d 865, 310 N.Y.S.2d 786).
Here, the notice of intention alleged that the claimant was injured as a result of a trip and fall "on the boardwalk at Jones Beach, County of Nassau, State of New York, in the East Quarter Circle, or its vicinity". Because the notice of intention fails to identify the place where such claim arose with sufficient specificity, we find that it fails to comply with the strictures of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), and is therefore, jurisdictionally defective.
Finally, contrary to appellants' contention, the State "is not required to go beyond a claim or notice of intention in order to investigate an occurrence or ascertain information which should be provided pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11" (Grande v. State of New York, 160 Misc.2d 383, 609 N.Y.S.2d 512).
We have reviewed the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sacher v. State
...at 647; Wharton v City Univ. of N.Y., 287 A.D.2d 559, 560; Grumet v State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442; Cobin v State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 499), the Court of Appeals has never adopted such language in this context, or otherwise stated that "substantial compliance" with the Court......
-
Sacher v. State
...287 A.D.2d 559, 560, 731 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; Grumet v. State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442, 682 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 499, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ), the Court of Appeals has never adopted such language in this context, or otherwise stated that "substantial compli......
-
Kimball Brooklands Corp. v. State, 2017–05438
...Court of Claims Act § 11 ’ " ( Hargrove v. State of New York, 138 A.D.3d 777, 778, 29 N.Y.S.3d 495, quoting Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 498, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ; see Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d at 208, 770 N.Y.S.2d 696, 802 N.E.2d 1094 ).Accordingly, we agree with......
-
Hargrove v. State, Claim No. 123732, 2014-11409.
...a claim must also include a statement as to when and where the claim arose (see Court of Claims Act § 11[b] ; Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 499, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ). The requirements of the Court of Claims Act that are set forth in sections 10(3) and 11(b) must be “strictly con......