Robertson v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Robertson v. State

27 Misc. 2d 506, 212 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2392

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 30, 1960

DocketClaim No. 37862

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 2d 506 (Robertson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robertson v. State, 27 Misc. 2d 506, 212 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2392 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Bernard Ryan, P. J.

Claimant, who alleges that he was injured while an inmate of Attica Prison, has moved for an examination before trial of the State’s employees. He made his motion returnable in the New York district wherein he resides and his attorneys have their office for the practice of law. The Attorney-General opposed the motion solely upon the ground that it was made in the wrong venue, invoking rule 8 of the Rules of the Court of Claims. The Judge presiding in the New York district referred the matter to the Judge presiding in the Buffalo district wherein the claim arose and where a trial term of court is current. The motion has been submitted for decision without oral argument.

The Attorney-General having offered no reason why the relief sought should not be granted, and there appearing to be none, an order may be entered.

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

Bernard Ryan, P. J.

Claimant, who alleges that he was injured while an inmate of Attica Prison, has moved for an examination before trial of the State’s employees. He made his motion returnable in the New York district wherein he resides and his attorneys have their office for the practice of law. The Attorney-General opposed the motion solely upon the ground that it was made in the wrong venue, invoking rule 8 of the Rules of the Court of Claims. The Judge presiding in the New York district referred the matter to the Judge presiding in the Buffalo district wherein the claim arose and where a trial term of court is current. The motion has been submitted for decision without oral argument.

The Attorney-General having offered no reason why the relief sought should not be granted, and there appearing to be none, an order may be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 2d 506, 212 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-state-nyclaimsct-1960.