Diaz v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. State

222 A.D.2d 549, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12974

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 549 (Diaz 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

Diaz v. State, 222 A.D.2d 549, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages under Court of Claims Act § 8-b for unjust conviction and imprisonment, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mega, J.), dated July 26, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim. Since the claimant admitted his guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see, People v Diaz, 167 AD2d 414), the likelihood of proving his innocence by clear and convincing evidence is nonexistent (see, Paris v State of New York, 202 AD2d 482).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the claimant’s remaining contentions. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages under Court of Claims Act § 8-b for unjust conviction and imprisonment, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mega, J.), dated July 26, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim. Since the claimant admitted his guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see, People v Diaz, 167 AD2d 414), the likelihood of proving his innocence by clear and convincing evidence is nonexistent (see, Paris v State of New York, 202 AD2d 482).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the claimant’s remaining contentions. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 549, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack