Lufker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lufker v. State

239 A.D.2d 565, 657 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665

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

DecidedMay 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 565 (Lufker 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

Lufker v. State, 239 A.D.2d 565, 657 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered June 3, 1996, which denied his motion to have the notice of intention to file a claim treated as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (8).

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the claimant’s motion is granted.

The Court of Claims improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to have the notice of intention to file a claim treated as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (8). While it is true that the claimant’s notice of intention failed to describe the location of the incident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11, the "report of incident” completed by the State University of New York campus police shortly after the [566]*566incident occurred provided the State of New York with timely actual notice of the exact location of the incident (see, Holly v State of New York, 191 AD2d 678). Further, there is no indication that the State would suffer substantial prejudice if the notice of intention to file a claim were to be treated as a claim (see, Holly v State of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered June 3, 1996, which denied his motion to have the notice of intention to file a claim treated as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (8).

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the claimant’s motion is granted.

The Court of Claims improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to have the notice of intention to file a claim treated as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (8). While it is true that the claimant’s notice of intention failed to describe the location of the incident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11, the "report of incident” completed by the State University of New York campus police shortly after the [566]*566incident occurred provided the State of New York with timely actual notice of the exact location of the incident (see, Holly v State of New York, 191 AD2d 678). Further, there is no indication that the State would suffer substantial prejudice if the notice of intention to file a claim were to be treated as a claim (see, Holly v State of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 565, 657 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lufker-v-state-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack