Patterson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 November 1976 |
| Parties | Richard L. PATTERSON, Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ruth Kessler Toch, Sol. Gen., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany (Jeremiah Jochnowitz, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas Hoffman and James I. Meyerson, New York City (James I. Meyerson, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MAHONEY, DILLON, GOLDMAN and WITMER, JJ.
The State appeals from an order of the Court of Claims granting claimant's motion 'for an order amending the Notice of Intention to File Claim dated June 14, 1971, to read 'NOTICE OF CLAIM ". The motion appears to have been made under Court of Claims Rule of Practice, section 1200.17, which at that time provided in subdivision (a), 'Claims, counterclaims and replies may be amended upon order of the court or a judge thereof.'
Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act provides in part: 'No judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have complied with the provisions of this section applicable to his claim.
(emphasis added).
Claimant filed his Notice of Intention to File Claim on June 14, 1971, and did nothing more in the matter until he moved on May 27, 1975 to amend the notice to have it constitute a claim. The application, therefore, was a direct effort to circumvent the above quoted provisions of subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. There was nothing wrong with this effort, provided that the notice of intention actually complied with the basic requirements for a claim (see Taylor v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 878, 879, 320 N.Y.S.2d 343, 345).
Section 11 of the Court of Claims Act provides in part,
The Court of Claims ruled that the Notice of Intention to File Claim complied essentially with the requirements of section 11 of the Court of Claim Act, and hence that it was within its power to amend the document by changing its label to Notice of Claim.
The State contends that the Court erred in holding that the Notice of Intention embodied the requirements for a claim. The State does not question that the notice was sufficient as a notice of intention to file a claim, so as to extend claimant's time for two years after the accrual of the claim in which to file his claim, but urges that since claimant failed to file his claim within the two-year period, he cannot now file one, and cannot circumvent the statute by amending his Notice of Intention.
In its memorandum decision the Court of Claims noted that the State did not move to dismiss the Notice of Intention as though it were a claim, and stated that the issue as to whether it states a cause of action was not before the court. In his brief before us claimant urges that the notice alerted the State generally to the substance of the claim and that the State may ascertain the details by a demand for a bill of particulars and by examination before trial.
Since the Notice of Intention to File Claim did not purport to be a claim, the burden could hardly be placed on the State to move to dismiss it as a claim; and it had no duty to ask for particulars...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarlat v. State
...of New York, 78 A.D.2d 767, 433 N.Y.S.2d 646; Brownshield v. State of New York, 76 A.D.2d 849, 432 N.Y.S.2d 851; Patterson v. State of New York, 54 A.D.2d 147, 388 N.Y.S.2d 420, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 885, 410 N.Y.S.2d 812, 383 N.E.2d 114; Kilbourne v. State of New York, 111 Misc.2d 161, 165-166, ......
-
Karen v. State
...Hudak claims. Dismissal is therefore required. (See Harper v. State, 34 A.D.2d 865, 310 N.Y.S.2d 786; see, also, Patterson v. State, 54 A.D.2d 147, 149-150, 388 N.Y.S.2d 420, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 885, 410 N.Y.S.2d 812, 383 N.E.2d We also note defendant alleged herein that the subject arrests wer......
-
Chung v. State
...cause of action, it is fatally defective. (Jackson v. State of New York, 85 A.D.2d 818, 445 N.Y.S.2d 620; Patterson v. State of New York, 54 A.D.2d 147, 388 N.Y.S.2d 420, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 885, 410 N.Y.S.2d 812, 383 N.E.2d 114; see Matter of Sarlat v. State of New York, 119 Misc.2d 369, 462 N......
-
Bensen v. State
...of the causes of action here (to wit, malice--see 36 N.Y.Jur., Malicious Prosecution, § 25) is fatal (see Patterson v. State, App.Div., 388 N.Y.S.2d 420 (4th Dept., 1976). Moreover, we do not believe it unreasonable to insist that a claim meet the minimum requirements of a pleading. (See CP......