McMillian v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McMillian v. State

267 A.D.2d 78, 699 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 78 (McMillian 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

McMillian v. State, 267 A.D.2d 78, 699 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Court of Claims of [79]*79the State of New York, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered October 21, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claimant’s claim that his liquor license was fraudulently canceled by the State Liquor Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claim for damages was properly dismissed on the ground that claimant’s remedy for the fraudulent or otherwise illegal cancellation of his license is a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, Fraccola v State of New York, 35 Misc 2d 74), which remedy plaintiff had already unsuccessfully pursued (see, Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343). We would add that claimant failed to file his claim timely, within 90 days of its accrual, as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order of the Court of Claims of [79]*79the State of New York, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered October 21, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claimant’s claim that his liquor license was fraudulently canceled by the State Liquor Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claim for damages was properly dismissed on the ground that claimant’s remedy for the fraudulent or otherwise illegal cancellation of his license is a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, Fraccola v State of New York, 35 Misc 2d 74), which remedy plaintiff had already unsuccessfully pursued (see, Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343). We would add that claimant failed to file his claim timely, within 90 days of its accrual, as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 78, 699 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-v-state-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack