Greenspan Bros. v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1986 |
| Parties | GREENSPAN BROTHERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anderson, Banks, Moore, Curran & Hollis, Mount Kisco (P. Daniel Hollis, III, Margaret A. Clark and Barbara E. O'Connor, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley and Richard J. Dorsey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), dated March 15, 1985, which dismissed its claim on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
It is undisputed that the State vacated the premises which it leased from the claimant on April 21, 1983. The claimant was aware that the premises had been vacated by 10:00 A.M. the next morning, April 22, 1983. Accordingly, the premises were under the claimant's control and available for inspection on that date.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(4), any claim for breach of contract must be filed within six months after the accrual of such claim. It is well settled that the filing requirements of Court of Claims Act § 10 are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (see, Lurie v. State of New York, 73 A.D.2d 1006, 423 N.Y.S.2d 969, aff'd. 52 N.Y.2d 849, 437 N.Y.S.2d 77, 418 N.E.2d 670; Bommarito v. State of New York, 35 A.D.2d 458, 317 N.Y.S.2d 581). Thus, if the filing is not timely, the claim is subject to dismissal. The expression "claim accrues" is synonomous with "damages accrue", and a claim accrues when damages are ascertainable (see, Bronxville Palmer v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 647, 318 N.Y.S.2d 412; Dufel v. State of New York, 198 App.Div. 97, 102, 189 N.Y.S. 759; see also, Otis Elevator Co. v. State of New York, 52 A.D.2d 380, 383 N.Y.S.2d 920).
In the instant case, the claimant could have determined its damages as of April 22, 1983. The fact that the claimant, for one reason or another, chose not to ascertain its damages at that time is irrelevant. Its claim is time-barred since more than six months had passed at the time of filing (see, Heritage Corp. of N.Y. v. New York State Thruway Auth., 44 A.D.2d 869, 355 N.Y.S.2d 501).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goines v. State
... ... in support of strict construction of section 10(5)]; see ... also Kolnacki v State of New York , 8 N.Y.3d 277, 281 ... [2007]; Greenspan Bros. v State of New York , 122 ... A.D.2d 249, 249 [2d Dept 1986]). As the Court of Appeals ... noted in discussing the Legislature's intent that ... ...
-
Welch v. State
...Natl. Bank v State of New York, 210 A.D.2d 294; White Plains Parking Auth. v State of New York, 180 A.D.2d 729; Greenspan Bros. v State of New York, 122 A.D.2d 249). Inasmuch as the claimant's "notice of claim" was not filed until August 1992, his negligence and fraud claims are untimely an......
-
Wiltz v. State
...Plains Parking Auth. v. State of New York , 180 A.D.2d 729, 730, 580 N.Y.S.2d 68 [2d Dept. 1992] ; Greenspan Bros. v. State of New York , 122 A.D.2d 249, 250, 505 N.Y.S.2d 173 [2d Dept. 1986] ). This similarly applies even where the alleged wrongdoing is on-going, although damages may be so......
-
Fairchild Corp. v. State
...N.Y.S.2d 83 ; White Plains Parking Auth. v. State of New York, 180 A.D.2d 729, 730, 580 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Greenspan Bros. v. State of New York, 122 A.D.2d 249, 249–250, 505 N.Y.S.2d 173 ). Here, so much of Fairchild's claim as alleged breach of contract accrued, at the very latest, in July 2010......