Hoffman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. State

184 A.D.2d 331

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

DecidedJune 16, 1992

DocketClaim No. 78115

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 331 (Hoffman 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

Hoffman v. State, 184 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Court of Claims (Donald Corbett, Jr., J.), entered June 1, 1990, dismissing claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9, 10 (3) and 11, and CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree that any claim that claimant may have had against the State of New York was not timely made, the claim having been made more than 90 days after what can be viewed, in the light most favorable to claimant, as the last-occurring State action (see, Brinkley v City Univ., 92 AD2d 805). We decline to reach those arguments based on facts dehors the record (see, Knolls Coop. Section No. 2 v Evans Dev. Corp., 169 AD2d 690), and those presenting new theories for the first time on appeal (Unitron Graphics v Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 75 AD2d 783, 784), and would, in any event, find them meritless.

We have reviewed the claimant’s other arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Court of Claims (Donald Corbett, Jr., J.), entered June 1, 1990, dismissing claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9, 10 (3) and 11, and CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree that any claim that claimant may have had against the State of New York was not timely made, the claim having been made more than 90 days after what can be viewed, in the light most favorable to claimant, as the last-occurring State action (see, Brinkley v City Univ., 92 AD2d 805). We decline to reach those arguments based on facts dehors the record (see, Knolls Coop. Section No. 2 v Evans Dev. Corp., 169 AD2d 690), and those presenting new theories for the first time on appeal (Unitron Graphics v Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 75 AD2d 783, 784), and would, in any event, find them meritless.

We have reviewed the claimant’s other arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-state-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack