Ganci v. Tuthill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganci v. Tuthill

216 A.D.2d 391, 628 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6183

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

DecidedJune 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 391 (Ganci v. Tuthill) 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

Ganci v. Tuthill, 216 A.D.2d 391, 628 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 71, inter alia, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful retention of money seized by the police, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 21, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The gravamen of this action is the alleged wrongful retention of money after the disposition of a criminal action in the course of which money was seized. As such, a timely notice of claim was required to be filed (see, Boyle v Kelley, 42 NY2d 88; Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County, 75 AD2d 816; Matter of Abramowitz v Guido, 61 AD2d 1045; County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e). Since no such notice of claim was filed, the action was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Ganci v Tuthill, 216 AD2d 390 [decided herewith]; Boyle v Kelley, supra; Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County, supra; Matter of Abramowitz v Guido, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 71, inter alia, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful retention of money seized by the police, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 21, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The gravamen of this action is the alleged wrongful retention of money after the disposition of a criminal action in the course of which money was seized. As such, a timely notice of claim was required to be filed (see, Boyle v Kelley, 42 NY2d 88; Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County, 75 AD2d 816; Matter of Abramowitz v Guido, 61 AD2d 1045; County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e). Since no such notice of claim was filed, the action was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Ganci v Tuthill, 216 AD2d 390 [decided herewith]; Boyle v Kelley, supra; Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County, supra; Matter of Abramowitz v Guido, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 391, 628 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganci-v-tuthill-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack