Klinger v. State
| Decision Date | 06 March 1995 |
| Citation | 623 N.Y.S.2d 319,213 A.D.2d 378 |
| Parties | Irmgard KLINGER, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Weiner & Hyman, Nanuet (Howard B. Stolzenberg and Robert A. Hyman, of counsel), for appellants.
Dennis C. Vacco, Atty. Gen., New York City (Peter G. Crary and Vernon Stuart, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SANTUCCI, J.P., and JOY, FRIEDMANN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 20, 1993, which denied their motion for leave to file a late claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to obtain leave to file a late claim the claimant must establish that there is some merit to the claim asserted (De Olden v. State of New York, 91 A.D.2d 1057, 458 N.Y.S.2d 666). The claimant's unsupported opinion that her motor vehicle accident might not have happened had the State installed a traffic light at the intersection where it occurred does not suffice to establish that her claim has merit (Nyberg v. State of New York, 154 Misc.2d 199, 585 N.Y.S.2d 147). We further note that the claimant's 9-month delay in filing her claim is not adequately excused by her physician's explanation that she had suffered, inter alia, a cerebral concussion and cervical strain for an unspecified period of time after the accident (see, e.g., Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 539 N.Y.S.2d 792).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buyes v. State
...at 721, 76 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; Matter of Magee v. State of New York, 54 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 863 N.Y.S.2d 840 ; Klingler v. State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 378, 379, 623 N.Y.S.2d 319 ; Musto v. State of New York, 156 A.D.2d 962, 963, 549 N.Y.S.2d 256 ; Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 45......
-
Alati v. State
...the Court finds that claimants have failed to establish the appearance of merit of the proposed claim (see Klingler v State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 378 [2d Dept 1995] [claimant's unsupported opinion that her motor vehicle accident would not have happened if the State had installed a traffic......
-
Alati v. State
...the Court finds that claimants have failed to establish the appearance of merit of the proposed claim (see Klingler v State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 378 [2d Dept 1995] [claimant's unsupported opinion that her motor vehicle accident would not have happened if the State had installed a traffic......
-
Lynn v. State
...that movant has not established an appearance of merit of the injuries set forth in the proposed claim (see Klingler v State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 378 [2d Dept 1995] [movant's unsupported opinion does not suffice to establish merit of the proposed claim]). In sum, the proposed claim fails......