Movers v. State
This text of 226 A.D.2d 616 (Movers 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.
Opinion
In a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the defendant appeals from an order of the Court [617]*617of Claims (Mega, J.), dated December 5, 1994, which granted the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the defendant’s contention that the claimant must litigate this dispute, which arose from a written contract to perform services, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]; Granger & Sons v Comptroller of State of N. Y., 220 AD2d 945; May v State of New York, 86 AD2d 898, affd 57 NY2d 505; Matter of Dominick Dan Alonzo, Inc. v State of New York, 73 AD2d 760; cf., Matter of Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Ctr. v State of New York, 177 AD2d 834; Sidoti v State of New York, 115 AD2d 202). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 A.D.2d 616, 641 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/movers-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.