Tuszynski v. State of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 9070
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2017
Docket1493 CA 16-02018
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9070 (Tuszynski 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
Tuszynski v. State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 9070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Tuszynski v State of New York (2017 NY Slip Op 09070)
Tuszynski v State of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 09070
Decided on December 22, 2017
Appellate Division, Fourth 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 December 22, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

1493 CA 16-02018

[*1]DAVID F. TUSZYNSKI, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,

v

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 125827.)


DAVID F. TUSZYNSKI, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi Minarik, J.), entered June 15, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, a pro se inmate, appeals from an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim. We affirm. Inasmuch as claimant served the claim by regular mail, the Court of Claims was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim (see Zoeckler v State of New York, 109 AD3d 1133, 1133 [4th Dept 2013]; see generally Court of Claims Act § 11 [a]). Contrary to claimant's contention, there is no evidence in the record of " misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of facility officials' that would warrant an estoppel" (Butler v State of New York, 126 AD3d 1247, 1247 [3d Dept 2015]; cf. Wattley v State of New York, 146 Misc 2d 968, 969-970 [Ct Cl 1990]).

Entered: December 22, 2017

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Butler v. State of New York
126 A.D.3d 1247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Zoeckler v. State
109 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wattley v. State
146 Misc. 2d 968 (New York State Court of Claims, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 9070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuszynski-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.