Sciascia v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sciascia v. State

141 A.D.2d 716, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082

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

DecidedJune 20, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 716 (Sciascia 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

Sciascia v. State, 141 A.D.2d 716, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death claim against the State of New York, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated March 4, 1987, which denied his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In view of the absence in the claimant’s moving papers of any information indicating the essential facts constituting the claim, or the nature of the wrong committed by the State, Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (see, Malek v State of New York, 92 AD2d 659). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death claim against the State of New York, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated March 4, 1987, which denied his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In view of the absence in the claimant’s moving papers of any information indicating the essential facts constituting the claim, or the nature of the wrong committed by the State, Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (see, Malek v State of New York, 92 AD2d 659). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 716, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciascia-v-state-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack