Shabat v. State of New York

189 N.Y.S.3d 666, 216 A.D.3d 1023, 2023 NY Slip Op 02693
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 17, 2023
Docket2021-05903
StatusPublished

This text of 189 N.Y.S.3d 666 (Shabat v. State of New York) 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
Shabat v. State of New York, 189 N.Y.S.3d 666, 216 A.D.3d 1023, 2023 NY Slip Op 02693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Shabat v State of New York (2023 NY Slip Op 02693)
Shabat v State of New York
2023 NY Slip Op 02693
Decided on May 17, 2023
Appellate Division, Second 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 May 17, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS
DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

2021-05903

[*1]Tiffany Shabat, appellant,

v

State of New York, et al., respondents. (Claim No. 128591)


Michael N. David, New York, NY (Michael B. Thomas, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.



DECISION & ORDER

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Judith A. Hard, J.), dated July 9, 2021. The judgment, upon a decision of the same court dated June 23, 2021, made after a hearing, dismissed the claim for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(b).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The facts of this case are set forth in a decision and order on a prior appeal (see Shabat v State of New York, 177 AD3d 1009), in which this Court reversed an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) after determining that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the claimant had attached photographs of the precise location of the accident to her notice of intention to file a claim. Thereafter, following a hearing pursuant to CPLR 603, the Court of Claims determined that there were no photographs attached to the notice of intention to file a claim and in a judgment dated June 23, 2021, it dismissed the claim. The claimant appeals.

The Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The evidence introduced at the hearing did not demonstrate that the notice of intention to file a claim had photographs attached to it and the notice did not provide a sufficient description of the location of the accident (see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]; Smith v State of New York, 213 AD3d 789; Vallarta v State of New York, 211 AD3d 884; Criscuola v State of New York, 188 AD3d 645; Katan v State of New York, 174 AD3d 1212).

BARROS, J.P., IANNACCI, ZAYAS and DOWLING, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Criscuola v. State of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 06241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Vallarta v. State of New York
211 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Smith v. State of New York
183 N.Y.S.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 N.Y.S.3d 666, 216 A.D.3d 1023, 2023 NY Slip Op 02693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shabat-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2023.