Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtLOUGHRAN
Citation299 N.Y. 295,86 N.E.2d 754
PartiesGUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. STATE.
Docket Number(Claim No. 27969).
Decision Date02 June 1949

299 N.Y. 295
86 N.E.2d 754

GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK
v.
STATE.

(Claim No. 27969).

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 2, 1949.


Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Proceeding on claim by Guaranty Trust Company of New York against the State of New York to recover contributions made by claimant toward unemployment insurance fund. From a judgment in favor of claimant in the Court of Claims, upon order of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court which dismissed defendant's appeal to such court, 191 Misc. 259, 76 N.Y.S.2d 824, the State appeals. The instant appeal also brings up for review an order of the Appellate Division, 271 App.Div. 711, 69 N.Y.S.2d 65, which reversed, on the law and the facts, a prior judgment of Court of Claims, Ryan, J., 186 Misc. 676, 62 N.Y.S.2d 309, granting a motion by defendant for a dismissal of the claim upon ground that it had not been timely filed, and remitted the matter to Court of Claims for hearing on the merits. The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation of agreed facts and the Court of Claims awarded judgment in favor of claimant. The appeal to Court of Appeals was first argued in January 4, 1949. On March 3, 1949, an application for reargument on the merits was granted.

Judgment reversed and claim dismissed.

[86 N.E.2d 755]

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General (Kent H. Brown, Wendell P. Brown, John R. Davison, and Donald C. Glenn, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Ralph M. Carson and William R. Meagher, New York City, and Frank H. Medinger, New York City, for respondent.


LOUGHRAN, Chief Judge.

This claim against the State of New York was filed in the Court of Claims for recovery of the amount of unemployment insurance contributions which the claimant Trust Company had paid for the period August 10 to December 31, 1939. Upon motion made by the State before trial, the claim was dismissed on the ground that it had not been filed within the time limited by the Court of Claims Act, 186 Misc. 676, 62 N.Y.S.2d 309; then, upon an appeal by the claimant to the Appellate Division, the judgment of dismissal by the Court of Claims was reversed and the case remitted to that court ‘for a hearing on the merits.’ 271 App.Div. 711, 714, 69 N.Y.S.2d 65, 68.

When the parties met again in the Court of Claims, they entered into a ‘stipulation of agreed facts' which embodied substantially all the matters alleged in the claim and thereupon the Court of Claims awarded to the claimant a judgment for the sum demanded. An appeal by the State to the Appellate Division followed but upon the claimant's motion was dismissed by an order upon which judgment was thereafter entered in the office of the clerk of the Court of Claims. At that stage, it will be observed, and claimant had acquired the equivalent of a final judgment of affirmance in its favor by the Appellate Division. Hence the State was quite in order when it appealed from that judgment to this court as of right, two Justices of the Appellate Division having dissented. See Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank, 162 N.Y. 253, 56 N.E. 628, Id.,168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904;Matter of City of New York (New Court House), 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157;Silverstein v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 221 N.Y. 332, 117 N.E. 307; Borenstein v. Borenstein, 272 N.Y. 407, 3 N.E.2d 844; Civil Practice Act, s 588, subd. 1, cl. (b). Accordingly, we heretofore denied a motion by the claimant for dismissal of the appeal so taken by the State, 298 N.Y. 860, 84 N.E.2d 327, and the appeal having been argued before us we now pass to a determination of the merits.

The material facts admit of a short statement. The claimant, a State banking institution subject to the New York Unemployment Insurance Law, Labor Law, Consol.Laws, c. 31, art. 18, on October 11, 1939, and January 13, 1940, reported and paid umemployment insurance contributions for the period August 10 to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Rutuelo v. State, No. 61657
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • April 7, 1982
    ...statute was unconstitutional. (Citibank v. State of New York, 103 Misc.2d 348, 425 N.Y.S.2d 932; Guaranty Trust Co. v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 87 N.E.2d Having found probable cause for the proceeding on the Uniform Traffic Ticket, the claim for malicious prosecution must be dismiss......
  • Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State, No. 45976
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 15, 1967
    ...with subdivision 4 of § 10 of the Court of Claims Act and is thus precluded from recovery under Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. State, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754. In Guaranty the Court of Appeals stated: 'Taking the payments of the unemployment insurance contributions in question to have......
  • Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State, No. 45976
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 27, 1971
    ...29, 164 N.E. 732) and whether or not there had been a timely filing of the claim (cf. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754). In reaching the prior determination, the question of whether or not the declaration of unconstitutionality by the Court of App......
  • Ouziel v. State, No. M-55836
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • October 23, 1997
    ...a cause of action available in this Court upon a theory of money had and received (Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754). Likewise, the same cause of action will be available if a tax statute is repealed retroactively (405 Company v. State of New ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Rutuelo v. State, No. 61657
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • April 7, 1982
    ...statute was unconstitutional. (Citibank v. State of New York, 103 Misc.2d 348, 425 N.Y.S.2d 932; Guaranty Trust Co. v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 87 N.E.2d Having found probable cause for the proceeding on the Uniform Traffic Ticket, the claim for malicious prosecution must be dismiss......
  • Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State, No. 45976
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 15, 1967
    ...with subdivision 4 of § 10 of the Court of Claims Act and is thus precluded from recovery under Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. State, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754. In Guaranty the Court of Appeals stated: 'Taking the payments of the unemployment insurance contributions in question to have......
  • Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State, No. 45976
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 27, 1971
    ...29, 164 N.E. 732) and whether or not there had been a timely filing of the claim (cf. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754). In reaching the prior determination, the question of whether or not the declaration of unconstitutionality by the Court of App......
  • Ouziel v. State, No. M-55836
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • October 23, 1997
    ...a cause of action available in this Court upon a theory of money had and received (Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d 754). Likewise, the same cause of action will be available if a tax statute is repealed retroactively (405 Company v. State of New ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT