Thompson v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. State of New York

286 A.D.2d 831, 730 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9077

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 831 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 831, 730 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), entered April 11, 2000, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant’s use of ordinary mail to serve the claim on the Attorney General was unauthorized (see, Court of Claims Act § 11 [a]) and was insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the State (see, Turley v State of New York, 279 AD2d 819, lv denied 96 NY2d 708; Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827). The Court of Claims, therefore, correctly granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim based upon the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction asserted in the answer.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), entered April 11, 2000, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant’s use of ordinary mail to serve the claim on the Attorney General was unauthorized (see, Court of Claims Act § 11 [a]) and was insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the State (see, Turley v State of New York, 279 AD2d 819, lv denied 96 NY2d 708; Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827). The Court of Claims, therefore, correctly granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim based upon the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction asserted in the answer.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 831, 730 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack