Modern Transfer Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 01 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. M--12692,M--12692 |
| Citation | 37 A.D.2d 756,322 N.Y.S.2d 948 |
| Parties | MODERN TRANSFER CO., Inc., Respondent v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Bauman, Chatman & Oppenheimer, Louis D'Amanda, Rochester, for appellant.
Michael J. Miller, Rochester, for respondent.
Before GOLDMAN, P.J., and DEL VECCHIO, MARSH, WITMER, and MOULE, JJ.
Claimant is an interstate carrier. On November 12, 1968 one of its trucks was involved in an accident on the New York State Thruway. On May 5, 1970, more than seventeen months after the accident, this motion for permission to file a late claim was made upon an affidavit by a director of plaintiff alleging that he was a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and as such was not acquainted with the laws of the State of New York in regard to notification of intent to file claims against the State. It is well established that ignorance of the filing requirement is not a 'reasonable excuse' for failure to file timely claim (Boland v. State, 35 A.D.2d 855, 315 N.Y.S.2d 216; Landry v. State, 1 A.D.2d 934, 149 N.Y.S.2d 514, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 927, 161 N.Y.S.2d 889, 141 N.E.2d 919; Havill v. State, 284 App.Div. 932, 134 N.Y.S.2d 755). Claimant also suggests that it did not file a timely claim because it believed that the claim was being considered by the State's insurance carrier in good faith. However, nothing had been done by the insurer and it had not even been in communication with claimant during the 90 day filing period. In this circumstance, reliance on a probability of settlement is not available as a reasonable excuse for not filing. Furthermore, since all of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act is jurisdictional in character, particularly the timeliness of filing, the provisions must be strictly construed (Bommarito v. State, 35 A.D.2d 458, 317 N.Y.S.2d 581).
Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walach v. State
...934, 149 N.Y.S.2d 514 (Fourth Dept., 1956), affd. 2 N.Y.2d 927, 161 N.Y.S.2d 889, 141 N.E.2d 919 (1957); Modern Transfer Co. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948 (Fourth Dept., 1971); Crane v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 1001, 289 N.Y.S.2d 521 (Third Dept., As to the secon......
-
Antoine v. State
...State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 786, 350 N.Y.S.2d 230, affd. 37 N.Y.2d 735, 374 N.Y.S.2d 619, 237 N.E.2d 131; Modern Transfer Co. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948. It is, therefore, the decision of this Court that the third cause of action is barred, as not being timely fi......
-
Plate v. State
...N.Y.2d 927, 161 N.Y.S.2d 889, 141 N.E.2d 919; Crane v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 1001, 289 N.Y.S.2d 521; Modern Transfer Co. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948.) Movant's contention goes beyond this principle, however, since he alleges not only ignorance of the law, bu......
-
Williams v. State
...for filing, as has often been stated, are jurisdictional requisites and must be strictly construed. (Modern Transfer Co. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948; Bommarito v. State of New York, 35 A.D.2d 458, 317 N.Y.S.2d 581; Olson v. State of New York, 71 Misc.2d 1009, 338 N......