Sheils v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1998 |
| Citation | 671 N.Y.S.2d 519,249 A.D.2d 459 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3592 Eileen SHEILS, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jakubowski, Robertson & Goldsmith, L.L.P., Saint James (Edward A. Robertson, of counsel), for appellants.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, New York City (Peter G. Crary and Belina Anderson, of counsel), for respondent.
Before PIZZUTO, J.P., and JOY, FRIEDMANN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered January 22, 1997, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that the notice of intention to file a claim and the claim were insufficient to provide the defendant with notice of the location of the place where the claim arose.
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 the claim (hereinafter collectively the notices), must set forth, inter alia, the "place where such claim arose". The purpose of this requirement is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts surrounding the claim. In the instant case, the claimants' notices allege that the accident occurred while the injured claimant was walking across Route 112/25A in front of the Infant Jesus Church, in Port Jefferson. The photocopies of the photographs annexed to the notices are very difficult to make out, and only vaguely show a driveway located somewhere on a property with a 1000-foot frontage on the roadway where the injured claimant fell. Thus, the Court of Claims properly found that the claimants' notices were insufficient to provide the State with a sufficient description of the location of the accident and dismissed the claim for failure to comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) (see, Schneider v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 357, 650 N.Y.S.2d 798; Smith v. Village of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 897, 533 N.Y.S.2d 510).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyatt v. State, 2019–00696
... ... State of New York , 164 A.D.3d at 652, 83 N.Y.S.3d 533 ; Casey v. State of New York , 161 A.D.3d at 721, 76 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; Sommer v. State of New York , 131 A.D.3d 757, 758, 14 N.Y.S.3d 813 ; Sheils v. State of New York , 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 519 ). The police accident report filed with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, which described the place of the occurrence of the accident at a location significantly different from the location alleged in the proposed claim, was ... ...
-
Wilson v. State
... ... In contrast, in Sheils v. State of New York, 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1998) a lack of detail within a notice of intention and claim regarding the exact location along a 1000foot length of specified roadway in front of a church property where a pedestrian fell was held to be jurisdictionally defective, where the ... ...
-
Sinski v. State
... ... The purpose of the § 11(b) pleading requirements is to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable the State to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability (see, Sheils v. State of New York, 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 519; Sega v. State of New York, 246 A.D.2d 753, 668 N.Y.S.2d 56). The gravamen of the claim is that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the ... intersection in a dangerous condition and in failing to warn motorists of the danger. Given ... ...