Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/500 Eighth Ave. Associates v. State

500 Eighth Ave. Associates v. State

30 A.D.2d 1010, 294 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3126
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 22, 1968
DocketClaim No. 49282
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 1010 (500 Eighth Ave. Associates v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
500 Eighth Ave. Associates v. State, 30 A.D.2d 1010, 294 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims permitting claimants to file a late notice of claim. The claim is for fire damage which occurred on March 10, 1966 to premises rented by claimants to the State Division of Employment. In support of their application for permission to file a late notice of claim (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 5), claimants’ attorney served an affirmation stating that on June 1, 1966 a notice of intention to file claim was served upon the Division of Employment but that “ affirmant’s office inadvertently failed ” to file the notice with the Clerk of the Court of Claims (Court of Claims Act, § 11) and that on March 1, 1967 a notice of claim was served upon the Attorney-General but that “ Again the party handling this file neglected to file a copy * * * with the Clerk’s office ”. Under subdivision 5, above referred to, a claimant’s application must show, among other things, “ a reasonable excuse for the failure to file If we were to indulge the doubtful assumption that the eonelusory allegation that the attorney “ inadvertently ” failed to file constitutes an “ excuse ”, we would be obliged to hold that an attorney’s inadvertence is not a “ reasonable excuse (Landry v. State of New York, 1 A D 2d 934, affd. 2 N Y 2d 927; Crane v. State of New York, 29 A D 2d 1001; Fenimore v. State of New York, 28 A D 2d 626; Hall v. State of New York, 28 A D 2d 1034.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, application denied and claim dismissed; without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Decker v. State of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 5751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Sevillia v. State
91 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Joshua A. Becker & Associates, P. C. v. State
104 Misc. 2d 588 (New York State Court of Claims, 1980)
Flannery v. State
91 Misc. 2d 797 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Pum Realty Corp. v. State
90 Misc. 2d 774 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Berger v. State University of New York at Stony Brook
90 Misc. 2d 754 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Woodley v. State
88 Misc. 2d 889 (New York State Court of Claims, 1976)
Sessa v. State
88 Misc. 2d 454 (New York State Court of Claims, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 1010, 294 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/500-eighth-ave-associates-v-state-nyappdiv-1968.