Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation Unit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation Unit

69 A.D.3d 515, 894 N.Y.2d 386

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 515 (Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation Unit) 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

Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation Unit, 69 A.D.3d 515, 894 N.Y.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[516]*516The motion court correctly denied claimant’s motion for a default judgment as contrary to Court of Claims Act § 12 (1). Defendant, apparently receiving its first notice of this pro se matter on this appeal, also correctly asserts the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Claims (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997]; Ranz v Sposato, 77 AD2d 408, 409-410 [1980]; McConnell v Williams S. S. Co., Inc., 239 App Div 393, 395 [1933], affd without op 265 NY 594 [1934]), since the underlying claim, inter alia, does not comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]) and seeks judicial review by the Court of Claims of claimant’s divorce proceedings (see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). Hence, such dismissal is warranted. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

[516]*516The motion court correctly denied claimant’s motion for a default judgment as contrary to Court of Claims Act § 12 (1). Defendant, apparently receiving its first notice of this pro se matter on this appeal, also correctly asserts the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Claims (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997]; Ranz v Sposato, 77 AD2d 408, 409-410 [1980]; McConnell v Williams S. S. Co., Inc., 239 App Div 393, 395 [1933], affd without op 265 NY 594 [1934]), since the underlying claim, inter alia, does not comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]) and seeks judicial review by the Court of Claims of claimant’s divorce proceedings (see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). Hence, such dismissal is warranted. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 515, 894 N.Y.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driscoll-v-new-york-state-attorney-generals-office-litigation-unit-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack