Rodriguez v. City Univ. of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. City Univ. of N.Y.

2020 NY Slip Op 354, 114 N.Y.S.3d 219, 179 A.D.3d 506

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2020

Docket10792 121369

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 354 (Rodriguez v. City Univ. of N.Y.) 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

Rodriguez v. City Univ. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 354, 114 N.Y.S.3d 219, 179 A.D.3d 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Rodriguez v City Univ. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 00354)

Rodriguez v City Univ. of N.Y.

2020 NY Slip Op 00354

Decided on January 16, 2020

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 16, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kern, Singh, JJ.

10792 121369

[*1] Marie J. Rodriguez, etc., Claimant-Appellant,

v

City University of New York, Defendant-Respondent.

Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Steven C. Wu of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick, J.), entered October 4, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of proper service, unanimously affirmed, on the law and the facts, without costs.

Claimant's argument that by producing a receipt for a request for certified mail, return receipt requested, coupled with defendant's admission of receipt of a copy of the claim, she has proved service upon defendant in compliance with Court of Claims Act § 11, is unavailing. It is not enough for claimant simply to point to her receipt for mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Instead, claimant must prove not only that she attempted service by certified mail, return receipt requested, but that such service was actually completed (see

Court of Claims Act § 11[a]; Govan v State of New York , 301 AD2d 757, 758 [3d Dept], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Claimant's submissions do not do this.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 16, 2020

CLERK

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

Rodriguez v City Univ. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 00354)

Rodriguez v City Univ. of N.Y.

2020 NY Slip Op 00354

Decided on January 16, 2020

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 16, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kern, Singh, JJ.

10792 121369

[*1] Marie J. Rodriguez, etc., Claimant-Appellant,

v

City University of New York, Defendant-Respondent.

Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Steven C. Wu of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick, J.), entered October 4, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of proper service, unanimously affirmed, on the law and the facts, without costs.

Claimant's argument that by producing a receipt for a request for certified mail, return receipt requested, coupled with defendant's admission of receipt of a copy of the claim, she has proved service upon defendant in compliance with Court of Claims Act § 11, is unavailing. It is not enough for claimant simply to point to her receipt for mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Instead, claimant must prove not only that she attempted service by certified mail, return receipt requested, but that such service was actually completed (see

Court of Claims Act § 11[a]; Govan v State of New York , 301 AD2d 757, 758 [3d Dept], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Claimant's submissions do not do this.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 16, 2020

CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2020 NY Slip Op 354, 114 N.Y.S.3d 219, 179 A.D.3d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-univ-of-ny-nyappdiv-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack