Sinclair v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinclair v. State

43 A.D.3d 1144, 841 N.Y.S.2d 784

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1144 (Sinclair 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

Sinclair v. State, 43 A.D.3d 1144, 841 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, J.), dated August 17, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the claim as jurisdictionally defective and granted the claimant’s [1145]*1145cross motion for leave to amend the claim to add further specific allegations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In light of the recent amendment of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (L 2007, ch 606, § 1), retroactively abrogating Kolnacki v State of New York (8 NY3d 277 [2007]), the instant claim was not jurisdictionally defective notwithstanding the absence of an ad damnum clause.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Crane, J.E, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, J.), dated August 17, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the claim as jurisdictionally defective and granted the claimant’s [1145]*1145cross motion for leave to amend the claim to add further specific allegations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In light of the recent amendment of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (L 2007, ch 606, § 1), retroactively abrogating Kolnacki v State of New York (8 NY3d 277 [2007]), the instant claim was not jurisdictionally defective notwithstanding the absence of an ad damnum clause.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Crane, J.E, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1144, 841 N.Y.S.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-v-state-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack