A. Servidone, Inc./B. Anthony Construction Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. Servidone, Inc./B. Anthony Construction Corp. v. State

295 A.D.2d 375, 743 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 10, 2002

DocketClaim No. 103057

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 375 (A. Servidone, Inc./B. Anthony Construction Corp. 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

A. Servidone, Inc./B. Anthony Construction Corp. v. State, 295 A.D.2d 375, 743 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), dated August 17, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant State of New York for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimant failed to serve a verified claim upon the New York State Department of Transportation within 40 days of the mailing of final payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant’s acceptance of final payment constituted a release of all claims pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract.

The claimant does not fall within the savings provision of State Finance Law § 145, which requires service of a verified statement of the claim upon the “public body concerned,” since the claim was not served upon the New York State Department of Transportation. The claimant’s service of the claim upon the Attorney General on behalf of the State did not satisfy that requirement (see Fosco Fabricators v State of New York, 94 AD2d 667; Mem of Off of Gen Servs, L 1970, ch 513, 1970 Legis Ann, at 210).

[376]*376The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), dated August 17, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant State of New York for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimant failed to serve a verified claim upon the New York State Department of Transportation within 40 days of the mailing of final payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant’s acceptance of final payment constituted a release of all claims pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract.

The claimant does not fall within the savings provision of State Finance Law § 145, which requires service of a verified statement of the claim upon the “public body concerned,” since the claim was not served upon the New York State Department of Transportation. The claimant’s service of the claim upon the Attorney General on behalf of the State did not satisfy that requirement (see Fosco Fabricators v State of New York, 94 AD2d 667; Mem of Off of Gen Servs, L 1970, ch 513, 1970 Legis Ann, at 210).

[376]*376The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 375, 743 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-servidone-incb-anthony-construction-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack