Gatz v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gatz v. State

283 A.D.2d 607, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 607 (Gatz 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

Gatz v. State, 283 A.D.2d 607, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated April 6, 2000, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as untimely pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss [608]*608the appellant’s claim as untimely, as he neither served and filed the claim nor a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days of the accrual date of the claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [3], [3-b]; Conner v State of New York, 268 AD2d 706, 707; Selkirk v State of New York, 249 AD2d 818, 819). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated April 6, 2000, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as untimely pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss [608]*608the appellant’s claim as untimely, as he neither served and filed the claim nor a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days of the accrual date of the claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [3], [3-b]; Conner v State of New York, 268 AD2d 706, 707; Selkirk v State of New York, 249 AD2d 818, 819). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 607, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatz-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack