Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Modern Transfer Co. v. State

Modern Transfer Co. v. State

37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3593
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1971
DocketClaim No. M-12692
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 756 (Modern Transfer Co. 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
Modern Transfer Co. v. State, 37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Claimant is an interstate carrier. On November 12, 1968 one of its trucks was involved in an accident on the New York State Thruway. On May 5, 1970, more than 17 months after the accident, this motion for permission to file a late claim was made upon an affidavit by a director of plaintiff alleging that he was a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and as such was not acquainted with the laws of the State of New York in regard to notification of intent to file claims against the State. It is well established that ignorance of the filing requirement is not a “ reasonable excuse ” for failure to file timely claim (Boland v. State of New York, 35 A D 2d 855; Landry v. State of New York, 1 A D 2d 934, affd. 2 N Y 2d 927; Havill v. State of New York, 284 App. Div. 932). Claimant also suggests that it did not file a timely claim because it believed that the claim was being considered by the State’s insurance carrier in good faith. However, nothing had been done by the insurer and it had not even been in communication with claimant during the 90-day filing period. In this circumstance, reliance on a probability of settlement is not available as a reasonable excuse for not filing. Furthermore, since all of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act is jurisdictional in character, particularly the timeliness of filing, the provisions must be strictly construed (Bommarito v. State of New York, 35 A D 2d 458). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, [757]*757granting motion to file claim.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Witmer and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Frederick v. State
23 Misc. 3d 1008 (New York State Court of Claims, 2009)
Avila v. State
131 Misc. 2d 449 (New York State Court of Claims, 1986)
Krales v. City University
128 Misc. 2d 168 (New York State Court of Claims, 1985)
Antoine v. State
103 Misc. 2d 664 (New York State Court of Claims, 1980)
Bivas v. State
97 Misc. 2d 524 (New York State Court of Claims, 1978)
Plate v. State
92 Misc. 2d 1033 (New York State Court of Claims, 1978)
Flannery v. State
91 Misc. 2d 797 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Walach v. State
91 Misc. 2d 167 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Youngstown Pneumatic Concrete Co. v. State
55 A.D.2d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Smith v. State
53 A.D.2d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Littanzi v. State
85 Misc. 2d 931 (New York State Court of Claims, 1976)
Peterson v. State
84 Misc. 2d 296 (New York State Court of Claims, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.2d 756, 322 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/modern-transfer-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1971.