Hotchkiss v. State of New York
| Decision Date | 23 October 1954 |
| Citation | 206 Misc. 852 |
| Parties | Marjorie M. Hotchkiss, Claimant,<BR>v.<BR>State of New York, Defendant. (Motion No. 2726.) |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
J. Cyril O'Connor for claimant.
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Fred I. Zabriskie of counsel), for defendant.
Having failed to commence her action within the prescribed period, claimant now seeks leave to file her proposed claim (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 5). Though the cause accrued on September 28, 1952, the instant application was served and filed on September 28, 1954, long after the required ninety-day period and upon the very last day of the two-year limitation period. On October 24, 1952, claimant's attorney, who was retained on or about October 20, 1952, wrote to the Director of the Creedmoor State Hospital, where the accident occurred, advising him fully about the event. Among other things, he stated that he intended to institute suit to recover damages for the injuries suffered by the claimant unless he heard from him in a week's time regarding an amicable adjustment of the matter. On November 5, 1952, the Director advised him that the matter had been submitted to the Department of Law. No further action was taken by the attorney in the prosecution of his client's claim until the instant application was brought.
While the State makes no serious contention that it has been substantially prejudiced by the delay in filing, it, nevertheless, urges a denial of the application because of claimant's noncompliance with the statutory requirement that a reasonable excuse be shown for failure to file within the ninety-day period. The excuse offered is regarded as insufficient. The papers recite a rather harrowing tale of difficulties encountered by the attorney both before and after the instant claim accrued. It appears that he and his family were in a serious automobile collision on August 12, 1951, more than a year prior to his retainer by the claimant, and that he, thereafter, discontinued his law practice until January or February, 1952. However, it also appears that from February, 1952, until September, 1953, he resumed his law practice and that it was not until September, 1953, that he again discontinued it and discharged his secretary. Thus, it is acknowledged that he was engaged in his practice at the time he was retained by the claimant and that he had pursued claimant's matter to the extent of communicating with the Director of the State institution. No good reason appears why he could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenimore v. State
...87 N.Y.S.2d 136; Schroeder v. State, 252 App.Div. 16, 297 N.Y.S. 632; Blatt v. State, 19 Misc.2d 3, 192 N.Y.S.2d 27; Hotchkiss v. State, 206 Misc. 852, 135 N.Y.S.2d 668; Williams v. State, 175 Misc. 972, 25 N.Y.S.2d 968). Moreover, the physical injuries sustained by claimant do not here pro......
-
Davis v. State, 46577--M
...cannot be considered reasonable under the circumstances (Williams v. State, 46 Misc.2d 724, 260 N.Y.S.2d 780; Hotchkiss v. State, 206 Misc. 852, 853--854, 135 N.Y.S.2d 668, 669) and the court's discretion was improvidently The record further reveals that movants have completely failed to sh......