Pyle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pyle v. State

185 A.D.2d 649, 586 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

DocketClaim No. 75738

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 649 (Pyle 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

Pyle v. State, 185 A.D.2d 649, 586 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the award of consequential damages for reasons stated by the Court of Claims (McMahon, J.). We add only that we are unable to review defendant’s contention that the court erred in granting, in part, claimants’ motion for an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701 because the motion papers are not a part of the stipulated record on this appeal. In any event, defendant’s contention that the 1987 amendment to EDPL 701 (see, L 1987, ch 771) should not have been applied retroactively lacks merit because the right to the additional allowance did not accrue until the award was made. The date of the award was subsequent to the effective date of the amendment (see, Hakes v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1035; First Bank & Trust Co. v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1034; Thomas v State of New York, 179 AD2d 945; Lee-Hi Fuel Corp. v State of New York, 179 AD2d 494; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed & Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 AD2d 705). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.— Consequential Damages.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the award of consequential damages for reasons stated by the Court of Claims (McMahon, J.). We add only that we are unable to review defendant’s contention that the court erred in granting, in part, claimants’ motion for an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701 because the motion papers are not a part of the stipulated record on this appeal. In any event, defendant’s contention that the 1987 amendment to EDPL 701 (see, L 1987, ch 771) should not have been applied retroactively lacks merit because the right to the additional allowance did not accrue until the award was made. The date of the award was subsequent to the effective date of the amendment (see, Hakes v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1035; First Bank & Trust Co. v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1034; Thomas v State of New York, 179 AD2d 945; Lee-Hi Fuel Corp. v State of New York, 179 AD2d 494; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed & Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 AD2d 705). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.— Consequential Damages.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 649, 586 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyle-v-state-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack