Vega v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vega v. State

305 A.D.2d 1053, 759 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

DocketClaim No. 93242

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1053 (Vega 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

Vega v. State, 305 A.D.2d 1053, 759 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (NeMoyer, J.), entered February 5, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.

Memorandum: The Court of Claims erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time-barred. Claimant did not properly file and serve the claim within 90 days after the accrual of the claim, nor did he properly serve a notice of intention to file a claim within that 90-day period (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]; § 11 [a] [i]; see also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925, 926 [1993]; Andriola v State of New York, 53 AD2d 966 [1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976]). Present-Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (NeMoyer, J.), entered February 5, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.

Memorandum: The Court of Claims erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time-barred. Claimant did not properly file and serve the claim within 90 days after the accrual of the claim, nor did he properly serve a notice of intention to file a claim within that 90-day period (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]; § 11 [a] [i]; see also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925, 926 [1993]; Andriola v State of New York, 53 AD2d 966 [1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976]). Present-Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1053, 759 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-v-state-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack