Hagan v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hagan v. State

88 A.D.2d 989, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17381

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

DecidedJune 28, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 989 (Hagan 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

Hagan v. State, 88 A.D.2d 989, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act for leave to serve a late claim, the claimant appeals from (1) an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated March 2, 1981, which denied the application, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 29, 1981, which denied her motion to renew. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal on the basis of newly discovered evidence. We find no error or abuse of discretion in the Court of Claims denial of leave to serve a late claim. If the claimant has now discovered evidence that the State had timely notice of the accident and a timely opportunity to investigate, her remedy is to move appropriately at nisi prius. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act for leave to serve a late claim, the claimant appeals from (1) an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated March 2, 1981, which denied the application, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 29, 1981, which denied her motion to renew. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal on the basis of newly discovered evidence. We find no error or abuse of discretion in the Court of Claims denial of leave to serve a late claim. If the claimant has now discovered evidence that the State had timely notice of the accident and a timely opportunity to investigate, her remedy is to move appropriately at nisi prius. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 989, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hagan-v-state-nyappdiv-1982.