Consola v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 2011 |
| Parties | Jeanne CONSOLA, Appellant,v.STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
84 A.D.3d 1557
922 N.Y.S.2d 638
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03946
Jeanne CONSOLA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of New York, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 12, 2011.
[922 N.Y.S.2d 639]
Blangiardo & Blangiardo, Cutchogue (Frank J. Blangiardo of counsel), for appellant.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, KAVANAGH, STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.STEIN, J.
[84 A.D.3d 1557] Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered January 29, 2010, which, among other things, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.
Claimant brought this claim against defendant seeking in [84 A.D.3d 1558] excess of $15 million in compensatory and punitive damages in connection with an instant lottery ticket she purchased. Claimant alleged that the ticket was a winning ticket and that, when she attempted to claim her prize, employees of the State Division of the Lottery refused to honor the ticket. After issue was joined, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The Court of Claims granted defendant's motion and this appeal by claimant ensued.
We affirm. Tax Law § 1604(a)(4) authorizes the Division to promulgate regulations concerning the establishment and operation of the state lottery, including “[t]he manner of selecting the winning tickets.” Knowledge of the regulations is presumed and the regulations are strictly construed and will be given the binding effect of law unless they are found to be unreasonable ( see Ramesar v. State of New York, 224 A.D.2d 757, 759, 636 N.Y.S.2d 950 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 811, 649 N.Y.S.2d 378, 672 N.E.2d 604 [1996] ). As pertinent here, in order to constitute a winning lottery ticket, each “play symbol” on the ticket must match the “play symbol caption” beneath it ( see 21 NYCRR 2805.8[b] ) and both must be fully legible and present in their entirety ( see 21 NYCRR 2805.8[c], [d] ). In addition, a winning ticket “must not be ... defective, or printed or produced in error” (21 NYCRR 2805.8[r] ). A ticket that fails to meet any of the requirements established by the regulations is not eligible for a prize ( see 21 NYCRR 2805.8[t] ). Pursuant to 21 NYCRR 2805.9, the “sole and exclusive remedy of the bearer of [a] ticket” who disputes that a ticket is not a winner is replacement of the disputed ticket with an unplayed ticket of equal value at the sole discretion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krna v. Broome Co–operative Ins. Co.
...we conclude that several factual questions exist precluding partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability. [922 N.Y.S.2d 638] In opposition to the motion, defendant proffered the written notice sent to plaintiff in February 2008 which detailed the various company ......
-
Balgobin v. State
...and operation of the state lottery, including ‘[t]he manner of selecting the winning tickets’ " ( Consola v. State of New York, 84 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 922 N.Y.S.2d 638 [2011] ). "Knowledge of the regulations is presumed and the regulations are strictly construed and will be given the binding......
-
Curcio v. State Dep't of the Lottery
...the decisions from other states rejecting breach of contract claims under nearly identical circumstances. See Consola v. New York, 84 A.D.3d 1557, 922 N.Y.S.2d 638 (App.Div.2011) (affirming summary judgment in favor of state lottery agency that refused to pay a $5 million prize because the ......
-
Phoenix Signal & Elec. Corp. v. New York State Thruway Auth.
...of law, shifting the burden to claimant to demonstrate the existence of issues of fact ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Consola v. State of New York, 84 A.D.3d 1557, 1559, 922 N.Y.S.2d 638 [2011]; Kemper Ins. Cos. v. State of New York, 70 A.D.3d 192, 199, 892 N.Y.S.2d 596 [2009] ). Claimant did not mee......