Piccarreto v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piccarreto v. State

144 A.D.2d 920, 534 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14370

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

DocketClaim No. 74233

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 920 (Piccarreto 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

Piccarreto v. State, 144 A.D.2d 920, 534 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed on the law with costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s motions to dismiss based on claimants’ failure in two respects to comply with Court of Claims Act § 8-b, which provides a cause of action against the State for unjust conviction and imprisonment. Claimants failed to annex the documentary evidence required by section 8-b (3) (see, Stewart v State of New York, 133 AD2d 112, 113). In addition, claimants’ allegations in their claims failed to satisfy the requirement set forth in section 8-b (4) (see, Stewart v State of New York, supra, at 113-114; Fudger v State of New York, 131 AD2d 136, 140, lv denied 70 NY2d 616). Claimants asserted that they were convicted solely on the basis of perjured testimony, without which the convictions could not have been maintained. However, inability of the People to meet their burden in a criminal trial is not the equivalent of the statutory requirement that claimants, who have the burden of proof on this claim, state facts in sufficient detail to permit the court to find that they are likely to succeed at trial in proving that they did not commit the acts charged in the accusatory instrument.

All concur, except Doerr and Green, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

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

Order reversed on the law with costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s motions to dismiss based on claimants’ failure in two respects to comply with Court of Claims Act § 8-b, which provides a cause of action against the State for unjust conviction and imprisonment. Claimants failed to annex the documentary evidence required by section 8-b (3) (see, Stewart v State of New York, 133 AD2d 112, 113). In addition, claimants’ allegations in their claims failed to satisfy the requirement set forth in section 8-b (4) (see, Stewart v State of New York, supra, at 113-114; Fudger v State of New York, 131 AD2d 136, 140, lv denied 70 NY2d 616). Claimants asserted that they were convicted solely on the basis of perjured testimony, without which the convictions could not have been maintained. However, inability of the People to meet their burden in a criminal trial is not the equivalent of the statutory requirement that claimants, who have the burden of proof on this claim, state facts in sufficient detail to permit the court to find that they are likely to succeed at trial in proving that they did not commit the acts charged in the accusatory instrument.

All concur, except Doerr and Green, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 920, 534 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piccarreto-v-state-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack