Alexander v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. State

27 A.D.3d 273, 809 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 273 (Alexander 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

Alexander v. State, 27 A.D.3d 273, 809 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered June 13, 2005, which denied claimant’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum and granted defendant’s cross motion for dismissal of the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant’s objections to the response of a nonparty municipal agency to his request under the Freedom of Information Law are not properly raised before the Court of Claims and do not indicate a meritorious action against the State. The Court of Claims correctly held that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not an arm or agency of the State (see Town of Amherst v Niagara Frontier Port Auth., 19 AD2d 107, 110-111 [1963]), and claimant offers no evidence suggesting another basis for holding the State liable for his alleged injuries, other than speculation, conjecture and surmise. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 8 Misc 3d 1018(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51182(U) (2005).]

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

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered June 13, 2005, which denied claimant’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum and granted defendant’s cross motion for dismissal of the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant’s objections to the response of a nonparty municipal agency to his request under the Freedom of Information Law are not properly raised before the Court of Claims and do not indicate a meritorious action against the State. The Court of Claims correctly held that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not an arm or agency of the State (see Town of Amherst v Niagara Frontier Port Auth., 19 AD2d 107, 110-111 [1963]), and claimant offers no evidence suggesting another basis for holding the State liable for his alleged injuries, other than speculation, conjecture and surmise. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 8 Misc 3d 1018(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51182(U) (2005).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 273, 809 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack