Harrison v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrison v. State

199 A.D.2d 811, 608 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12222

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 811 (Harrison 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

Harrison v. State, 199 A.D.2d 811, 608 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered October 1, 1992, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

We reject claimant’s contention that the Court of Claims erred in ruling that the notice of claim was defective because it did not comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). The notice of intention failed to describe the nature of the claim with sufficient particularity. Therefore, insofar as no claim or notice of intention was filed within 90 days of the accrual of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11, the claim was properly dismissed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Cardona, White, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered October 1, 1992, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

We reject claimant’s contention that the Court of Claims erred in ruling that the notice of claim was defective because it did not comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). The notice of intention failed to describe the nature of the claim with sufficient particularity. Therefore, insofar as no claim or notice of intention was filed within 90 days of the accrual of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11, the claim was properly dismissed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Cardona, White, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 811, 608 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-nyappdiv-1993.