Claim of McCullough v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of McCullough v. State

3 A.D.3d 749, 770 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 641

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 749 (Claim of McCullough 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

Claim of McCullough v. State, 3 A.D.3d 749, 770 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered February 4, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as untimely.

Claimant seeks $300 in damages based upon his allegation that his typewriter was damaged by employees of the Department of Correctional Services. As claimant filed and served his claim for damages more than the 120 days after the record indicates that he exhausted his administrative remedies for personal property claims, his claim was untimely (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). Hence, respondent’s motion for dismissal was appropriately granted. Claimant’s remaining arguments have not properly been preserved for appellate review.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered February 4, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as untimely.

Claimant seeks $300 in damages based upon his allegation that his typewriter was damaged by employees of the Department of Correctional Services. As claimant filed and served his claim for damages more than the 120 days after the record indicates that he exhausted his administrative remedies for personal property claims, his claim was untimely (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). Hence, respondent’s motion for dismissal was appropriately granted. Claimant’s remaining arguments have not properly been preserved for appellate review.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 749, 770 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mccullough-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack