Zagarella v. State
Decision Date | 10 April 1989 |
Citation | 149 A.D.2d 503,539 N.Y.S.2d 803 |
Parties | Joseph ZAGARELLA, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Solomon Abrahams, White Plains, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley, Francis V. Dow and Kathleen Liston Morrison, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), dated July 1, 1987, which is in favor of the State and against him, after a nonjury trial.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We concur with the trial court's determination that the cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution accrued on January 20, 1983, when the prosecutor consented to dismissal of the charges against the claimant in the underlying criminal proceeding (cf., Ciferri v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 676, 500 N.Y.S.2d 28). The claimant failed to file a claim or a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days of that date and the time within which an application to file a late claim may be granted has elapsed (see, Court of Claims Act § 10[3-b] [former 10(3) ]; § 10[6]. The failure to comply with the statutory procedures for serving and filing a claim is a jurisdictional defect, and the claim was properly dismissed (see, Bryne v. State of New York, 104 A.D.2d 782, 480 N.Y.S.2d 225, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 607, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 477 N.E.2d 1107).
We further note that so much of the claim as alleged a violation of the claimant's civil rights pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 did not state a cause of action since that section does not give rise to a claim against the State (see, Davis v. State of New York, 124 A.D.2d 420, 507 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary State Comm. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 A.D.2d 723, 442 N.Y.S.2d 632, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 656, 451 N.Y.S.2d 708, 436 N.E.2d 1310).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gutterman v. State
...(see Brown v. State of New York , 89 N.Y.2d 172, 185, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 [1996] ; Zagarella v. State of New York , 149 A.D.2d 503, 504, 539 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2d Dept. 1989] ; Ohnmacht v. State of New York , 14 Misc. 3d 1231 [A], at *2, 2007 WL 474419 [Ct. Cl. 2007] ). Defendant a......
-
Welch v. State
...quoting Teddy's Drive In v Cohen, 54 A.D.2d 898, 900, affd 47 N.Y.2d 79; see also, Casillas v Perales, 154 A.D.2d 420; Zagarella v State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 503). Accordingly, although the claimant's amorphous civil rights claims were not subject to dismissal for failure to file a timel......
-
Snyder v. State
...2009] ; see Welch v. State of New York , 286 A.D.2d 496, 498, 729 N.Y.S.2d 527 [2d Dept. 2001] ; Zagarella v. State of New York , 149 A.D.2d 503, 504, 539 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2d Dept. 1989] ; Davis v. State of New York , 124 A.D.2d 420, 423, 507 N.Y.S.2d 520 [3d Dept. 1986] ; Russell v. State of ......
-
Brady v. State, Inc.
...Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 [1989];Welch v. State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 496, 498 [2d Dept 2001]; Zagarella v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 503 [2d Dept 1989]; Davis v. State of New York, 124 A.D.2d 420, 423 [3d Dept 1986] ). Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear actio......