Case law

Linnea W. v. State of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 50651(U) · New York Court of Claims · May 21, 2024

Applying these principles to the matter at bar, the State has sufficiently established that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the instant Claim and it must be dismissed. … This Court as a court of limited jurisdiction, clearly lacks the authority to review CPLR article 78 administrative determinations ( see Court of Claims Act § 9).

Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc. v. State

187 Misc. 880 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1946

The paper filed was clearly a notice of intention to file a claim and not a claim, and the filing of said paper cannot be construed as the commencement of the action. … If, as claimed, the liability of the State was established in Mohawk Carpet Mills v. State of New York ( 267 App. Div. 707 , affd. 296 N. Y. 609 ) claimant’s recourse is to the Legislature.

Reed v. State

129 Misc. 2d 517 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1985

That act broadened the waiver of immunity from liability created by Court of Claims §§ 8 and 8-a; and also amended Court of Claims Act § 9 (3-a). … At best, defense counsel’s reasoning in this respect was specious and clearly without merit. It is rejected by this court.

Fitzgerald v. State

6 Misc. 2d 492 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1957

Thus the history of these pertinent statutory provisions establishes that the Legislature has never indicated an intention to extend any right to an examination by the Attorney-General to an appropriation claim except on … The deliberate use of the words *499 “notice of claim” in subdivision 1 of section 17 after those words had clearly referred to a notice of intention to file a claim from the time of adoption in 1915, can only indicate an

Johnson v. State

79 Misc. 2d 737 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1974

The Judge in the Fiumara decision stated (p. 194): 11 The purpose of the notice of intention to file a claim is to alert the defendant to the existence of a claim and not to establish the legal .status of the one who filed … The language utilized by the Legislature in subdivision 2 of section 10 clearly requires the executor or administrator to file either a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself within 90 days after appointment

Waldron v. State

193 Misc. 113 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1948

It is averred that the State was negligent in permitting the extraction of the inmate’s tooth by another prisoner, who was not a qualified dentist, and was likewise at fault in the postoperative treatment resulting in an … Whether the occasion is sffltable can safely be left to the discretion of the executor or administrator unless it appear that Ms trust clearly has been abused.”

Rivers v. State

142 Misc. 2d 563 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1989

. *567 (2) Although there was no testimony by a medical expert as to the applicable standards of medical care in the community to establish that Dr. … Cally’s conduct violated such standards, exhibits 15, 25, 26 and 50 clearly prove Dr. Cally’s negligence and malpractice with regard to the operation on claimant.

Mike v. State

11 Misc. 3d 384 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 21, 2005

Criminal Trial Claimant waived his right to grand jury immunity and testified before the grand jury, the minutes of which are attached to *386 the State’s papers. (State’s exhibit 10.) … Without such an affidavit, the court is unable to conclude that claimant “[w]ould clearly and convincingly establish the elements of the claim.” (Moses v State of New York, 137 Misc 2d 1081, 1084 [1987].)

City of New York v. State

95 Misc. 2d 810 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 10, 1978

Professor Siegel, in his Handbook on New York Practice, takes the position that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies not only to matters actually litigated, but also to all which are necessarily established by the … The question of entitlement to interest was clearly a necessary part of the previous judgment, and as such, it cannot be litigated again.

Rosario v. State

51 Misc. 2d 790 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1966

Claimant had “his day in court ” on each of such applications; he was present in court each time and testimony was taken each time; on each such hearing claimant had the burden of proof in establishing the fact of his sanity … determined, claimant now endeavors to prove that during said time, the State and its employees were negligent in administering the medical and custodial care given him. *794 The decision of Judge Del Giokuo upon such motion clearly

Frontier Insurance v. State

146 Misc. 2d 237 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1989

Any plan so established must conform with the provisions of part 340 of the Policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (8 NYCRR part 340). … These documents clearly indicate that allowing the physicians to treat fee-paying patients was necessary to attract the high quality faculty required to run a first-class medical school.

Linnea W. v. State of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 50651(U) · New York Court of Claims · May 21, 2024

Applying these principles to the matter at bar, the State has sufficiently established that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the instant Claim and it must be dismissed. … This Court as a court of limited jurisdiction, clearly lacks the authority to review CPLR article 78 administrative determinations ( see Court of Claims Act § 9).

In re Ciena

10 Misc. 2d 576 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1958

and any other doctor qualified to interpret the mental aberrations of the subject. … It is well established that a person who has not been adjudged incompetent may sue or be sued, whether or not he is an inmate of a mental institution {Matter of Frank, supra).

Rodriguez v. State

55 Misc. 2d 669 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 20, 1967

On the evidence before the court, claimant clearly was discharged from probation on March 18, 1963 but nevertheless was held in prison during a four-month period thereafter, beginning February 4, 1964, for alleged violation … Harsh though the application of the rule of judicial immunity may seem, it is essential to bear in mind the comment of Judge Learned Hand in Gregoire v.

Gould v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 25283 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 11, 2025

CCA § 11 (b) Conditions the State's Wavier of Sovereign Immunity It is well established that "[t]he State's waiver of immunity from suits for money damages is not absolute, but rather is contingent upon a claimant's compliance … Here, claimants Girard, Gould, and Leckonby have established a prima facie case under the FLSA.

Columbus Holding Corp. v. State

60 Misc. 2d 199 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1969

This regulatory power has been so clearly established as a valid exercise of the police power as to be beyond question. (Red Apple Rest v. McMorran, 12 N Y 2d 203; Northern Lights Shopping Center v. … It has been so clearly established that damages caused by diversion of traffic are damnum absque injuria as to not require citation of authority.

Wholesale Service Supply Corp. v. State

201 Misc. 56 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1951

S. 168 ), Avhich holds that where a specific quantity is qualified by such words as “ about ”, “ more or less ”, etc., and such qualified words are followed by other stipulations or conditions, the contract is to be governed … The underlying reason for the development of such a theory of contract law in connection with government contracts arises from the fact that in procuring commodities for military establishments and like agencies, it is often

Jordan v. State

56 Misc. 2d 1032 · New York Court of Claims · May 15, 1968

subject matter of his claim concerns the events of his prior detention and did not involve his then current imprisonment on a subsequent and unrelated charge, the claimant upon his release on parole on November 25,1959 qualified … Statutes of Limitation are statutes of repose and where, as here in the Court of Claims, the statute provides the basis for the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the claim, it must be clearly established that the claimant

Muller v. State

179 Misc. 2d 980 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1999

pursuant to designation by the Social Security Administration or that otherwise assumes management responsibility over funds of a patient to maintain such funds in a fiduciary capacity to the patient, was enacted in 1986 and clearly … Notwithstanding the language of Mental Hygiene Law § 43.03, as claimant’s representative payee the neutral conservator would have been immune from suit or any other form of “legal process” so long as the disability benefits

Hamilton v. State

11 Misc. 3d 650 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 30, 2005

The Barski holding will be followed here as the State has failed to allege or establish prejudice and the proposed amended claim will be considered the operative *659 pleading for the purpose of determining the defendant’ … Clearly, that defect can be remedied by the filing of an amended claim containing a demand for relief.