Grumet v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1998 |
| Citation | 682 N.Y.S.2d 86 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,306 Zachary GRUMET, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stanley J. Somer & Associates, P.C., Commack, N.Y. (Jeffrey T. Heller of counsel), for appellants.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent State of New York.
ROSENBLATT, J.P., RITTER, COPERTINO and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered November 3, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant State of New York to dismiss the claim on the ground that the notice of intention to file a claim and the claim were insufficient to provide the defendants with notice of the condition which allegedly caused the accident.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant State of New York.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a notice of intention to file a claim and the claim must set forth the time and place in which the claim arose, and the nature of the claim. While Court of Claims Act § 11(b) does not require "absolute exactness", it requires a statement made with (Heisler v. State, 78 A.D.2d 767, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646; see, Harper v. State, 34 A.D.2d 865, 310 N.Y.S.2d 786). However, "conclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to [state] the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet its requirements" (Heisler v. State, supra; see also, Patterson v. State, 54 A.D.2d 147, 388 N.Y.S.2d 420, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 885, 410 N.Y.S.2d 812, 383 N.E.2d 114).
In the instant case, the notice of intention to file a claim only stated that the claimant slipped and fell without any indication as to what allegedly caused him to slip and fall. The claim merely alleged that the State was "careless, reckless and negligent". There was nothing in the language of either the notice of intention to file a claim or the claim which would have alerted the defendants as to the nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sacher v. State
...8 A.D.3d at 647, 779 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; Wharton v. City Univ. of N.Y., 287 A.D.2d 559, 560, 731 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; Grumet v. State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442, 682 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 499, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ), the Court of Appeals has never adopted such lan......
-
Kimball Brooklands Corp. v. State, 2017–05438
..." ( Wharton v. City Univ. of N.Y., 287 A.D.2d at 560, 731 N.Y.S.2d 650, quoting Grumet v. State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442, 682 N.Y.S.2d 86 ). The State "is not required to ‘ferret out or assemble information that section 11(b) obligates the claimant to allege’ " ( Davila v. State of ......
-
Young v. State
...N.Y.S.2d 552; Cendales v. State of New York, 2 A.D.3d 1165, 1167, 770 N.Y.S.2d 174; Grumet v. State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442, 682 N.Y.S.2d 86). Since the statutory requirements of the Court of Claims Act must be strictly construed ( see Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 277, 2......
-
Acee v. State
...the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances' " ( Grumet v. State of New York, 256 A.D.2d 441, 442, 682 N.Y.S.2d 86; see Triani, 44 A.D.3d at 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 81). Here, we agree with claimant that her notice of intent satisfies the requirements of section 11(......