Voulgarelis v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Voulgarelis v. State

211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 675 (Voulgarelis 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

Voulgarelis v. State, 211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated June 25, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination granting the motion of the respondent State of New York to dismiss the claim as untimely filed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly concluded that the claimant failed to timely file his claim with the court (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Since the failure to comply with the statutory procedures for serving and filing a claim is a jurisdictional defect, the claim was properly dismissed (see, Dependable Trucking Co. v New York State Thruway Auth., 41 AD2d 985, 986; Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782). Bracken, J. R, Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated June 25, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination granting the motion of the respondent State of New York to dismiss the claim as untimely filed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly concluded that the claimant failed to timely file his claim with the court (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Since the failure to comply with the statutory procedures for serving and filing a claim is a jurisdictional defect, the claim was properly dismissed (see, Dependable Trucking Co. v New York State Thruway Auth., 41 AD2d 985, 986; Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782). Bracken, J. R, Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voulgarelis-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack