Conner v. State of New York
| Decision Date | 13 January 2000 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | JERRY CONNER, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
This case arises out of the alleged improper detention of claimant, an inmate, as a result of the State's negligence. In March 1988, while claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2½ to 5 years in connection with an attempted burglary conviction, the underlying indictment was dismissed as the result of a CPL article 440 motion. Claimant alleges that he was unaware of the dismissal and was not released from prison until June 1988, at which time he was paroled. Claimant was later convicted of armed robbery in December 1990 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years to life. In September 1993, while serving this sentence, claimant obtained his criminal history report from the Division of Criminal Justice Services and realized that the indictment pertaining to attempted burglary had been dismissed. He obtained a certificate from Supreme Court, Kings County, in February 1994 confirming the dismissal.
A notice of claim was filed by claimant on April 7, 1994 and the State answered, raising untimely notice as an affirmative defense. Thereafter, claimant brought a motion to compel discovery and the State cross-moved for dismissal of the claim on the ground that claimant failed to serve his notice of claim within 90 days of the accrual of his cause of action. The Court of Claims granted the State's motion and dismissed the claim.
Claimant now appeals, primarily contending that the dismissal of the action was erroneous because his claim did not accrue until February 1994, when he alleges that he "discovered" the dismissal of his indictment. We disagree. It is axiomatic that the failure to file a notice of claim with the State within 90 days of the accrual of the claim is a fatal jurisdictional defect (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]; Selkirk v State of New York, 249 AD2d 818, 819; Ro Jo Lo Partners v State of New York, 226 AD2d 896). We find no basis for applying a "discovery rule" to this case because such a theory of claim accrual "should not be extended beyond the limited instances provided for by the Legislature" (Matter of Barresi v State of New York, 232 AD2d 962, 963; see, Kitonyi v Albany County, 128 AD2d 1018, 1018-1019). Notably, claimant has not demonstrated that he attempted to obtain a copy of the decision pertaining to the CPL article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beth R. v. Ronald S.
...with respect thereto are unpreserved (see Batales v. Friedman, 144 A.D.3d 849, 851, 41 N.Y.S.3d 275 [2016] ; Conner v. State of New York, 268 A.D.2d 706, 707, 701 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2000] ). As observed by Family Court, only the attorney for the child invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel, ......
-
Welch v. State
...and thereafter files and serves the claim upon the Attorney-General within two years after the accrual of the claim (see, Conner v State of New York, 268 A.D.2d 706; Coleman v Webb, 158 A.D.2d 500). As a condition of the State's limited waiver of sovereign immunity, those requirements are s......
-
Cappelli v. County of Tioga
... ... of Claim, and also on the ground of failure to state a claim ... Plaintiff filed an affirmation in opposition, and then ... Defendant filed ... Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 ... (1986) and Winegradv. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 ... N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985) (other citation omitted); see ... City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d ... 1011 (1981) (other citations omitted); see Conner v ... State, 268 A.D.2d 706 (3rd Dept. 2000) (90 day time ... limitation to file a ... ...
-
Campos v. State
...that a claim for wrongful confinement accrues upon a claimant's release from the special housing unit (see Conner v. State of New York, 268 A.D.2d 706, 707, 701 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2000] ). The premise underlying this rule is that the “[d]amages arising from wrongful confinement ... are reasonabl......