Heisler v. State
| Citation | 433 N.Y.S.2d 646,78 A.D.2d 767 |
| Parties | Alfred HEISLER, and Ann Heisler, Respondents, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1980 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., by Henderson Riggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, for appellant.
Brown, Kelly, Turner, Hassett & Leach, by Gordon Tresch, Buffalo, for Respondents.
Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and SCHNEPP, CALLAHAN, WITMER and MOULE, JJ.
Claimant, Ann Heisler, fell after she left a polling place located in an elementary school in West Seneca, New York on election day November 4, 1975. She later served a notice of intent to file a claim and subsequently moved that the notice be treated as the claim itself. From an order granting the motion, the State appeals. It urges that the Court of Claims improperly construed the notice of claim and also asserts, for the first time, that the State has not waived its sovereign immunity for this kind of act.
The first question is with what specificity must a claim be stated under Court of Claims Act, § 11. That section provides in pertinent part, "The claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed." What is required is not absolute exactness, but simply a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State. In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required (Chalmers & Son, Inc. v. State of New York, 271 App.Div. 699, 701, 68 N.Y.S.2d 827, aff'd. 297 N.Y. 690, 77 N.E.2d 8; Barski v. State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 767, 350 N.Y.S.2d 762; Otis Elevator Co. v. State of New York, 52 A.D.2d 380, 384, 383 N.Y.S.2d 920). Conclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet its requirements. (Patterson v. State, 54 A.D.2d 147, 150, 388 N.Y.S.2d 420).
A notice of intention to file a claim may be treated as a claim when it alleges the necessary elements of a cause of action in negligence. Examining the notice in this case reveals that it states the date, time and place of the mishap and that the polling place "is under the supervision of the Erie County Board of Elections ... the Town of West Seneca ... and the West Seneca Central School District ... all acting pursuant to obligations imposed by the State of New York." It further alleges that Mrs. Heisler fell and fractured her right leg "at approximately 8:45 P.M. and as a result of poor and inadequate lighting and improper maintenance of the exterior premises ..." This notice of intention substantially complied with the statute because it states the time, place, nature of the claim, injuries and total sum claimed. The State was thus adequately notified so that it could take such immediate investigative action as it deemed necessary. The manner in which claimant was injured and how the defendant was negligent were stated or can be reasonably inferred (see, Schweitzer v. Mindlin, 248 N.Y. 560, 561, 162 N.E. 524).
The State also argues that claimants failed to allege that the State of New York owned, leased or otherwise controlled the premises. The notice of intent, however, sufficiently alleged control when it stated that the school district, town and Board of Elections were all acting pursuant to obligations imposed by the State of New York (O'Brien v. City of Saratoga Springs, 224 App.Div. 124, 126, 229 N.Y.S. 613, see, Election Law, §§ 5-210, 5-204(9), 4-100, 4-102, 4-104, 3-400, 3-404; Schauf v. City of New York, 23 Misc.2d 585, 198 N.Y.S.2d 435; 46 N.Y.Jur. Premises Liability, § 238; Page, The Law of Premises Liability, § 10.20, p. 260).
We turn to the second issue raised for the first time on this appeal. Since sovereign immunity brings into question jurisdiction of the subject under the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engblom v. Carey
...from which an enforceable duty may arise. Poysa v. State, 102 Misc.2d 269, 423 N.Y.S.2d 617 (1979). See also Heisler v. State, 78 A.D.2d 767, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646, 648-49 (1980). Cf. Hongisto v. Mercure, 72 A.D.2d 850, 421 N.Y.S.2d 690, 693-94 (1979) (Acting Commissioner's decision concerning r......
-
Carlson v. State
...be made in a manner “specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State” ( Heisler v. State of New York, 78 A.D.2d 767, 767, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646 [1980] ), and pleading sufficiency under section 11(b) is measured pursuant to a more rigorous standard than under th......
-
Sacher v. State
...must allege the 'date... of the mishap'" (Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 173 A.D.3d 1812, 1813, quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 A.D.2d 767, 768). "If the claimant fails to specify the dates relevant to the elements of the claim or provides only a broad range of dates, the claim is......
-
Sacher v. State
...‘date ... of the mishap’ " ( Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 173 A.D.3d 1812, 1813, 105 N.Y.S.3d 648, quoting Heisler v. State of New York, 78 A.D.2d 767, 768, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646 ). "If the claimant fails to specify the dates relevant to the elements of the claim or provides only a broad ran......