Cunningham v. State

422 N.E.2d 821, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 440 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2433
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 1981
DocketClaim 61891
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 422 N.E.2d 821 (Cunningham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cunningham v. State, 422 N.E.2d 821, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 440 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2433 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendant State of New York, by dismissing claimant’s cause of action for abuse of process and, as so modified, affirmed. The question certified is answered in the negative.

The threshold inquiry in regard to claimant’s cause of action for abuse of process is whether that claim is timely under subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, which provides: “3. A claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injury caused by the tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed within ninety days after the accrual of such claim unless the claimant shall within such time file a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed within two years after the accrual of such claim.” Claimant contends, among other things, that his notice of intention was timely because it was filed within 90 days of the dismissal of the indictments which had been found against him. It is clear, however, that the accrual of a cause of action for abuse of process need not await the termination of an action in claimant’s favor (see Keller v Butler, 246 NY 249). Upon the record before us, we must conclude that claimant’s notice was untimely.

We have considered claimant’s contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order modified, with costs to defendant State of New York, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.

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

Related

Roland v. City of New York
S.D. New York, 2024
Pearson v. City Of New York
S.D. New York, 2024
Behrens v. City of Buffalo
217 A.D.3d 1589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Wilson v. Faulkner
N.D. New York, 2021
Marom v. Town of Greenburgh
S.D. New York, 2021
Wright v. City of New York
S.D. New York, 2019
X-Act Contracting Corp. v. Flanders
2017 NY Slip Op 1966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Pinter v. City of New York
976 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2013)
W. Stanford Blalock v. Preston Law Group, P.C.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2012
Dobies v. Brefka
263 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Beninati v. Nicotra
239 A.D.2d 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Pico Products, Inc. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc.
96 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Wilson v. State
117 Misc. 2d 608 (New York State Court of Claims, 1983)
Trayer v. State
90 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Kahn v. Friedlander
90 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Karen v. State
111 Misc. 2d 396 (New York State Court of Claims, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 N.E.2d 821, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 440 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-ny-1981.