Schneider v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1996 |
| Citation | 234 A.D.2d 357,650 N.Y.S.2d 798 |
| Parties | Lorraine SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pachman, Pachman, Brown & Farneti, P.C., Commack (Patrick A. Sweeney of counsel), for appellant.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City (Peter G. Crary, Vernon Stuart, and Belina Anderson of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for negligence, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered September 14, 1995, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that the notice of claim was inadequate and denied the claimant's cross motion, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended notice of claim. Justice Joy has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1[c] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a notice of intention to file a claim and a claim must set forth, inter alia, the "place where such claim arose". In the instant case, the claimant's notice of intention to file a claim and notice of claim merely alleged that the claimant had tripped and fallen "in the picnic area adjacent to the parking area" at Heckscher State Park. A map of Heckscher State Park attached to the State's moving papers clearly shows a number of picnic areas located adjacent to parking lots at various locations scattered throughout the park. Thus, the notice of intention to file a claim and the claim failed to provide the State with a sufficient description of the place of the accident (see, Smith v. Village of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 897, 533 N.Y.S.2d 510; see also, Mitchell v. City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 313, 516 N.Y.S.2d 458; Harper v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 770, 514 N.Y.S.2d 763), and the court properly dismissed the claim on the basis of the claimant's failure to comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b).
Moreover, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the claimant's cross motion, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended claim. The claimant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the State had notice of the essential facts constituting her claim or that the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances of the accident (see, Matter of Johnston v. Town of Putnam Val. Police Dept., 167...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sommer v. State
...753, 755, 668 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 805, 677 N.Y.S.2d 781, 700 N.E.2d 320 [1998] ; Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798 [1996] ; compare 14 N.Y.S.3d 815Mosley v. State of New York, 117 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 985 N.Y.S.2d 359 [2014] ; Acee v. S......
-
Criscuola v. State
...New York, 164 A.D.3d at 852, 83 N.Y.S.3d 139 ; Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d at 499, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ; Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798 ). Moreover, " ‘[t]he State is not required to go beyond a claim or notice of intention in order to investigate a......
-
Constable v. State
...York, 44 A.D.3d 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 81 ; Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 ; Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798 ; Torres v. State of New York , 233 A.D.2d 389, 650 N.Y.S.2d 566 ; cf. Acee v. State of New York, 81 A.D.3d 1410, 917 N.Y.S......
-
Wilson v. State
...at 681 Clarkson Avenue in Brooklyn, sufficiently described the place where a slip and fall occurred]; 4 Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798 [1996] [notice of intention and claim alleging trip and fall “in the picnic area adjacent to the parking area” at a specif......