Criscuola v. State
| Citation | 188 A.D.3d 645,134 N.Y.S.3d 67 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019–01828,Claim No. 128120 |
| Parties | Diane CRISCUOLA, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
188 A.D.3d 645
134 N.Y.S.3d 67
Diane CRISCUOLA, appellant,
v.
STATE of New York, respondent.
2019–01828
Claim No. 128120
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—June 2, 2020
November 4, 2020
Schoeps & Specht, New City, N.Y. (Michael B. Specht of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Amit R. Vora of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Stephen J. Mignano, J.), dated November 19, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On June 30, 2015, the claimant allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a depression in the asphalt of a running/bike path while jogging at Rockland Lake State Park in Rockland County. On September 28, 2015, the claimant served the New
York State Attorney General with a notice of intention to file a claim against the State alleging that while she was "jogging on the running path at Rockland Lake State Park," she "tripped and fell on cracked, broken, uneven and defective asphalt paving." In June 2016, the claimant filed and served a claim against the State alleging that she fell "at the running/bike path located between Areas 1 and 2, at Rockland Lake State Park." By notice of motion dated July 5, 2018, the State moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Claims, among other things, granted that branch of the State's motion. The claimant appeals.
A claim to recover damages for personal injuries shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the claim accrued, unless within 90 days, the claimant serves upon the Attorney General a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within two years after the accrual of such claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] ; Kiesow v. State of New York, 161 A.D.3d 1060, 1061,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sacher v. State
...defect" ( Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d at 281, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 ; see Criscuola v. State of New York, 188 A.D.3d 645, 645, 134 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; Hargrove v. State of New York, 138 A.D.3d 777, 777, 29 N.Y.S.3d 495 ). Section 10(3) of the Court of Claims Act sets forth ......
-
J.F. v. State
...Claims Act may deprive the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction (see Court of Claims Act § 8 ; Criscuola v. State of New York , 188 A.D.3d 645, 134 N.Y.S.3d 67 [2nd Dept. 2020] ), and be subject to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2). Specifically, Court of Claims Act § 11(b) "p......
-
Alam v. State
...of Claims Act §§ 10(3), (3–b), and 11(b) is a jurisdictional defect requiring the dismissal of the claim (see Criscuola v. State of New York, 188 A.D.3d 645, 646, 134 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; Hargrove v. State of New York, 138 A.D.3d 777, 777–778, 29 N.Y.S.3d 495 ). Here, the claim accrued, at the lat......
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Edmund-Henry