Klingler v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klingler v. State

213 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2469

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 378 (Klingler 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

Klingler v. State, 213 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant [379]*379to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 20, 1993, which denied their motion for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to obtain leave to file a late claim the claimant must establish that there is some merit to the claim asserted (De Olden v State of New York, 91 AD2d 1057). The claimant’s unsupported opinion that her motor vehicle accident might not have happened had the State installed a traffic light at the intersection where it occurred does not suffice to establish that her claim has merit (Nyberg v State of New York, 154 Misc 2d 199). We further note that the claimant’s 9-month delay in filing her claim is not adequately excused by her physician’s explanation that she had suffered, inter alia, a cerebral concussion and cervical strain for an unspecified period of time after the accident (see, e.g., Cabral v State of New York, 149 AD2d 453). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant [379]*379to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 20, 1993, which denied their motion for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to obtain leave to file a late claim the claimant must establish that there is some merit to the claim asserted (De Olden v State of New York, 91 AD2d 1057). The claimant’s unsupported opinion that her motor vehicle accident might not have happened had the State installed a traffic light at the intersection where it occurred does not suffice to establish that her claim has merit (Nyberg v State of New York, 154 Misc 2d 199). We further note that the claimant’s 9-month delay in filing her claim is not adequately excused by her physician’s explanation that she had suffered, inter alia, a cerebral concussion and cervical strain for an unspecified period of time after the accident (see, e.g., Cabral v State of New York, 149 AD2d 453). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klingler-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack