Englehart v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Englehart v. State

278 A.D.2d 361, 718 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 361 (Englehart 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

Englehart v. State, 278 A.D.2d 361, 718 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), entered January 12, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Court of Claims that the claim sounded in false imprisonment, and not negligence, as asserted by the claimant. Since the claimant did not commence the instant proceeding within the one-year Statute of Limitations for such a claim (see, CPLR 215 [3]), the Court of Claims properly denied the application to file a late claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; see also, NY Const, art III, § 19). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), entered January 12, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Court of Claims that the claim sounded in false imprisonment, and not negligence, as asserted by the claimant. Since the claimant did not commence the instant proceeding within the one-year Statute of Limitations for such a claim (see, CPLR 215 [3]), the Court of Claims properly denied the application to file a late claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; see also, NY Const, art III, § 19). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 361, 718 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englehart-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack