Goldberg v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1986 |
| Citation | 122 A.D.2d 248,505 N.Y.S.2d 443 |
| Parties | , 34 Ed. Law Rep. 231 Stanley GOLDBERG, etc., Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Peter J. Dooley and Michael S. Buskus, of counsel), for appellant.
Glaser, Shandell & Blitz, New York City (Beth M. Mann, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Orlando, J.), dated May 7, 1985, which granted the claimant's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against it.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The claimant applied for leave to file a late notice of claim three days after expiration of the 90-day period set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10(2).
Since the State was directly involved in the investigation of the circumstances of the death of the claimant's decedent, it had notice of the facts of the claim and suffered no prejudice. The instant claim involves the scope of the duty of the State University to take steps to protect persons on its premises from a student enrolled at its campus whose dangerous propensities were alleged to have been known prior to the attack. Related issues have been addressed in several recent cases (see, e.g., Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493; Eiseman v. State of New York, 109 A.D.2d 46, 489 N.Y.S.2d 957; see also, Satiro v. City of New Rochelle, 64 N.Y.2d 614, 485 N.Y.S.2d 47, 474 N.E.2d 255; Crosland v. New York City Transit Auth., 110 A.D.2d 148, 493 N.Y.S.2d 474) and may be the subject of further development. We cannot say, at this stage in the proceedings, that the claim is "patently groundless", or that the claimant may not be able to show, after a greater development of the facts, that he has a valid cause of action (see, Court of Claims Act § 10[6]; Prusack v. State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729, 498 N.Y.S.2d 455; Santana v. New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc.2d 1, 11, 399 N.Y.S.2d 395). Under these circumstances, and noting the lack of prejudice to the State, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late filing of this claim (see, Gatti v. State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 840, 456 N.Y.S.2d 82).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calverley v. State
...555 [2008] ; see Matter of Martinez v. State of New York, 62 A.D.3d 1225, 1227, 881 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2009] ; Goldberg v. State of New York, 122 A.D.2d 248, 249, 505 N.Y.S.2d 443 [1986] ).Upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the claim raised is patently groundless, frivolous or leg......
-
Goines v. State
... ... if it is "not ... patently groundless, frivolous or ... legally defective, and the record as a whole ... give[s] ... reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action ... exists" ( Calverley , 187 A.D.3d at 1427; see ... also Goldberg v State of New York , 122 A.D.2d 248, 249 ... [2d Dept 1986]; Sands v State of New York , 49 A.D.3d ... 444, 444 [1st Dept 2008]). In applying this standard, the ... Court may consider "all of the submitted papers, ... including affidavits and exhibits, to determine whether a ... putative ... ...
-
Swart v. State
...York, 49 A.D.3d 444, 444, 853 N.Y.S.2d 555 ; see Calverley v. State, 187 A.D.3d 1426, 1427, 134 N.Y.S.3d 554 ; Goldberg v. State of New York, 122 A.D.2d 248, 249, 505 N.Y.S.2d 443 ; Matter of Santana v. New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc.2d 1, 11, 399 N.Y.S.2d 395 [Ct.Cl.] ).Furthermore,......
-
Tucholski v. State
...v. State, 172 A.D.2d 724, 724, 569 N.Y.S.2d 109 ; see also Holly v. State, 191 A.D.2d 678, 678, 595 N.Y.S.2d 562 ; Goldberg v. State, 122 A.D.2d 248, 249, 505 N.Y.S.2d 443 ). Accordingly, upon consideration of the factors enumerated pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), the Court of Clai......