Pagano v. New York State Thruway Authority

235 A.D.2d 408, 652 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 408 (Pagano v. New York State Thruway Authority) 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
Pagano v. New York State Thruway Authority, 235 A.D.2d 408, 652 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered September 14, 1995, which denied the branch of their motion which was to dismiss certain defenses asserted in the defendant’s answer and denied the branch of their motion which was for leave to file a late claim without prejudice to making a motion for that relief upon proper papers concerning the merit of their claim, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This claim arises from a motor vehicle accident on the New York State Thruway. For reasons which are in dispute but are not relevant to this appeal, the claimants’ vehicle left the roadway and ultimately overturned in the drainage ditch.

The failure to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 results in a lack of jurisdiction which cannot be cured by application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see, Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721). The court therefore properly denied the branch of the motion which sought to dismiss the jurisdictional defenses raised by the defendant. Moreover, considering all of the relevant factors {see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]), we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the claimants’ application for leave to serve a late claim without prejudice to [409]*409renewal of that branch of the motion upon proper papers (see, Garvin v State of New York, 201 AD2d 533; Calco v State of New York, 165 AD2d 117). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Moore v. State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Flynn v. City University of New York at Brooklyn College
6 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Cudjoe v. State
4 A.D.3d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rodriguez v. State
307 A.D.2d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Wright v. State
195 Misc. 2d 597 (New York State Court of Claims, 2003)
Martinez v. State
282 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Pagano v. New York State Thruway Authority
235 A.D.2d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 408, 652 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagano-v-new-york-state-thruway-authority-nyappdiv-1997.