Eale Realty Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eale Realty Corp. v. State

115 A.D.2d 635, 496 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55076

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1985

DocketClaim No. 65934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 635 (Eale Realty Corp. 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

Eale Realty Corp. v. State, 115 A.D.2d 635, 496 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Rossetti, J.), dated June 22, 1984, which dismissed the claim after trial for lack of jurisdiction.

[636]*636Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on the merits of claimants’ assertions.

The agreements in question and the underlying negotiations clearly set forth that the State was acting by and through an agent, the Facilities Development Corp. The claim, which is based on contract, was therefore properly brought against the State, and the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such a claim (see, Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9 [2]). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Rossetti, J.), dated June 22, 1984, which dismissed the claim after trial for lack of jurisdiction.

[636]*636Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on the merits of claimants’ assertions.

The agreements in question and the underlying negotiations clearly set forth that the State was acting by and through an agent, the Facilities Development Corp. The claim, which is based on contract, was therefore properly brought against the State, and the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such a claim (see, Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9 [2]). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 635, 496 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eale-realty-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack