Nasir v. State, 2005-09762.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2005-09762. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 05480,41 A.D.3d 677,836 N.Y.S.2d 886 |
| Parties | SAIMA NASIR et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The claimants commenced this matter, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, seeking "monetary damages in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction." The claimants subsequently moved for leave to amend the claim to include the specific sums of damages and total damages being sought. The defendant cross-moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that the failure to state the total sum of damages being claimed constituted a jurisdictional defect under, inter alia, Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) which could not be cured by amendment (see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 [2003]). The Court of Claims denied the motion of the claimants and granted the defendant's cross motion to dismiss. We affirm.
As the Court of Appeals recently observed in Kolnacki v State of New York (8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]), "nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary." Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), the claim must specify, inter alia, the total amount of damages claimed, and "[t]he failure to satisfy any of the [statutory] conditions is a jurisdictional defect" (Kolnacki v State of New York, supra at 281). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant's motion for leave to amend the claim and granted the defendant's cross motion to dismiss.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sacher v. State
...not be cured by amendment" ( Matter of DeMairo v. State of New York, 172 A.D.3d 856, 857, 100 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; see Nasir v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 677, 677, 836 N.Y.S.2d 886 ). On this appeal, the claimant contends that the Court of Claims erred when it determined that her notice of int......
-
Correa v. State
...of New York, 1 N.Y.3d at 209, 770 N.Y.S.2d 696, 802 N.E.2d 1094 ), which may not be cured by amendment (see Nasir v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 677, 677, 836 N.Y.S.2d 886 ). Here, the claim failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of section 11(b) since it failed to state any inj......
-
Bermudez v. State
...Matter of Estate of Anwar v. State of New York, 9 Misc.3d 1127(A), 2005 WL 3000589 (Ct.Cl.2005), affd. Nasir v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 677, 836 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dept.2007). 6. But, see at the appellate level, Filozof v. State of New York, 45 A.D.3d 1405, 844 N.Y.S.2d 731 (4th Dept.200......
-
Moravec v. the City Univ. of N.Y.
...thus, claimant's motion must be decided with reference to the so-called four corners of the original claim. Nasir v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 677, 836 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dept.2007); Grande v. State of New York, 160 Misc.2d 383, 609 N.Y.S.2d 512 (Ct.Cl.1994). According to the claim as firs......