Pordum v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pordum v. State

77 A.D.2d 788, 430 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

DocketClaim No. 61310

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 788 (Pordum 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

Pordum v. State, 77 A.D.2d 788, 430 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and cross motion to permit late filing of claim granted. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that it was improper under these circumstances for the court to deny leave to file a late claim. The court acknowledges that there could be no substantial prejudice to the State since the Attorney-General has represented the Commissioner of Education in both the prior Féderal and State actions. This court has consistently ruled that a [789]*789just claim for damages should not be forfeited for failure to give notice where the basic purpose of the statute is not offended and where no substantial prejudice exists (Matter of Ziecker v Town of Orchard Park, 70 AD2d 422, 427-428; Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga, 64 AD2d 1025). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims—dismiss claim.) Present— Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and cross motion to permit late filing of claim granted. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that it was improper under these circumstances for the court to deny leave to file a late claim. The court acknowledges that there could be no substantial prejudice to the State since the Attorney-General has represented the Commissioner of Education in both the prior Féderal and State actions. This court has consistently ruled that a [789]*789just claim for damages should not be forfeited for failure to give notice where the basic purpose of the statute is not offended and where no substantial prejudice exists (Matter of Ziecker v Town of Orchard Park, 70 AD2d 422, 427-428; Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga, 64 AD2d 1025). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims—dismiss claim.) Present— Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 788, 430 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pordum-v-state-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack