Worden v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Worden v. State

4 A.D.2d 742, 164 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000

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

DecidedJune 19, 1957

DocketMotion No. M-4007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 A.D.2d 742 (Worden 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

Worden v. State, 4 A.D.2d 742, 164 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from reversed and matter remitted to the Court of Claims to exercise its original discretion as to whether, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, late filing should be permitted. Memorandum: We believe that the Court of Claims erred in holding that the time had not expired within which respondent could file a claim as of right. In the view which that court took of the ease, it was not called upon to exercise its discretion in determining whether late filing of a claim should be permitted (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 5) and it clearly did not do so. Since the discretion is that of the Court of Claims (Roswal v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 815), subject to review by this court, the order should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Court of Claims to exercise its original discretion in determining whether, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, late filing should be permitted. All concur. (Appeal from part of an order of the Court of Claims providing that the denial of claimant’s application for permission to file a claim should be without prejudice to future motions or proceedings.) Present—McCurn P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Bastow, JJ. [2 Misc 2d 955.]

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

—Order insofar as appealed from reversed and matter remitted to the Court of Claims to exercise its original discretion as to whether, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, late filing should be permitted. Memorandum: We believe that the Court of Claims erred in holding that the time had not expired within which respondent could file a claim as of right. In the view which that court took of the ease, it was not called upon to exercise its discretion in determining whether late filing of a claim should be permitted (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 5) and it clearly did not do so. Since the discretion is that of the Court of Claims (Roswal v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 815), subject to review by this court, the order should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Court of Claims to exercise its original discretion in determining whether, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, late filing should be permitted. All concur. (Appeal from part of an order of the Court of Claims providing that the denial of claimant’s application for permission to file a claim should be without prejudice to future motions or proceedings.) Present—McCurn P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Bastow, JJ. [2 Misc 2d 955.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 742, 164 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worden-v-state-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack