Chimbo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chimbo v. State

214 A.D.2d 531, 625 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedApril 3, 1995

DocketClaim No. 86878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 531 (Chimbo 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

Chimbo v. State, 214 A.D.2d 531, 625 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated September 23, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss his claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the notice of intention to file a claim was defective because it failed to state the nature of the claim alleged, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Since the notice of intention to file a claim was defective, the claimant could not properly avail himself of the two-year period in which to file a claim as provided by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) (see, DeFilippis v State of New York, 157 AD2d 826; cf., Conley v State of New York, 123 AD2d 598). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, 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 personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated September 23, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss his claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the notice of intention to file a claim was defective because it failed to state the nature of the claim alleged, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Since the notice of intention to file a claim was defective, the claimant could not properly avail himself of the two-year period in which to file a claim as provided by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) (see, DeFilippis v State of New York, 157 AD2d 826; cf., Conley v State of New York, 123 AD2d 598). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 531, 625 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chimbo-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack