Havill v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Havill v. State

284 A.D. 932, 134 N.Y.S.2d 755

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1954

DocketMotion No. 2591

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D. 932 (Havill 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

Havill v. State, 284 A.D. 932, 134 N.Y.S.2d 755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Claimant’s sole excuse for his failure to file his claim timely or notice of intention to file a claim is his “ youth and inexperience ”. There is nothing to indicate he was physically or mentally incapable of seeking counsel as to his rights; in fact, the injuries complained of point to the opposite conclusion. We cannot, therefore, interpret claimant’s excuse as anything else than ignorance of the law. This is not a reasonable excuse for the granting of permission under subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, to file a late claim. (Guifre v. State of New York, 192 Misc. 480; Monahan v. State of New York, 189 Misc. 533; Williams v. State of New York, 175 Misc. 972.) All concur. (Appeal from an order granting leave to claimant to file a claim against the State, as the result of an accident in an automobile race at the New York State Fair Grounds.) Present — MeCum, P. J., Vaughan, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [205 Misc. 530.]

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

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Claimant’s sole excuse for his failure to file his claim timely or notice of intention to file a claim is his “ youth and inexperience ”. There is nothing to indicate he was physically or mentally incapable of seeking counsel as to his rights; in fact, the injuries complained of point to the opposite conclusion. We cannot, therefore, interpret claimant’s excuse as anything else than ignorance of the law. This is not a reasonable excuse for the granting of permission under subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, to file a late claim. (Guifre v. State of New York, 192 Misc. 480; Monahan v. State of New York, 189 Misc. 533; Williams v. State of New York, 175 Misc. 972.) All concur. (Appeal from an order granting leave to claimant to file a claim against the State, as the result of an accident in an automobile race at the New York State Fair Grounds.) Present — MeCum, P. J., Vaughan, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [205 Misc. 530.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 932, 134 N.Y.S.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havill-v-state-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack