Jacobs v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobs v. State

275 A.D.2d 681, 714 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 681 (Jacobs 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

Jacobs v. State, 275 A.D.2d 681, 714 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Court of Claims, New York [682]*682County (S. Michael Nadel, J.), entered September 27, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim and amended claim, and denied claimant’s cross motion for permission to file a late claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly concluded that claimant’s claim accrued on March 8, 1993 and was time-barred pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b). Additionally, claimant’s claim is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Two prior actions by claimant asserting the same claims against State officers were dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the officers were cloaked with absolute official immunity with respect to the complained of conduct (Jacobs v Guido, US Dist Ct, ED NY, Aug. 20, 2000, Platt, J., affd 54 F3d 765, cert denied 516 US 862; Jacobs v Guido, 268 AD2d 278). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Court of Claims, New York [682]*682County (S. Michael Nadel, J.), entered September 27, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim and amended claim, and denied claimant’s cross motion for permission to file a late claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly concluded that claimant’s claim accrued on March 8, 1993 and was time-barred pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b). Additionally, claimant’s claim is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Two prior actions by claimant asserting the same claims against State officers were dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the officers were cloaked with absolute official immunity with respect to the complained of conduct (Jacobs v Guido, US Dist Ct, ED NY, Aug. 20, 2000, Platt, J., affd 54 F3d 765, cert denied 516 US 862; Jacobs v Guido, 268 AD2d 278). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 681, 714 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack