Case law

Starks v. State of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 51501(U) · New York Court of Claims · Oct 8, 2024

LAW AND ANALYSIS The State's Waiver of Immunity Under Section 8 of The Court of Claims Act The State's waiver of immunity under Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act is conditioned upon a movant's compliance with specific … DECISION AND ORDER Applying these legal principles to the case at bar, the State has sufficiently established that the Claim must be dismissed.

Mazart v. State

109 Misc. 2d 1092 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 8, 1981

Clearly, bigotry against gays goes deep into the social structure of stupidity. The most intolerant always seem to be the least informed and least informed always seem to be biased. … In other words, no extrinsic facts are necessary to establish the defamatory nature of the publication, since the defamation is clear from the writing itself. .

Levin v. State

8 Misc. 2d 33 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 15, 1957

These were factors which could have been transferred by a seller to a buyer and under those circumstances the court could properly consider as an element of fair market value, “ clearly-to-be expected future earnings ”. … In many instances the testimony of this expert was based upon the testimony of a qualified engineer as to cost of fill or excavation and as to comparable utility from a construction standpoint.

Buskey v. State

159 Misc. 2d 792 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 18, 1993

Reasonable discretionary determinations of government officials are to be accorded qualified immunity (see, supra) and the initial, 1983 State report, which was important evidence in the Abrams case, also dealt with the S.S.P … However, simply because crossover accidents have occurred on the S.S.P. in Nassau County or even on parts thereof near the subject accident does not legally establish that such a stretch of that highway is per se dangerous

Rakow v. State

18 Misc. 3d 904 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 10, 2007

Public Health Law § 4200 (1) clearly establishes the duty but imposes it on no specified individual or group of individuals. To find upon whom the duty is imposed, we must turn to case law. … The case law clearly establishes the hierarchal right to possession and the corollary duty of proper burial of the decedent, first in the spouse and thereafter the next of kin (Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,

Queensboro Farm Products, Inc. v. State

175 Misc. 574 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 21, 1940

Out of the classified price plan came the blended price which represented the average of all established classified prices. … The agreement was that the State’s agency “ may in its discretion permit an adjustment of the price ” Claimant and its officers were familiar with existing conditions in the milk market and were qualified to anticipate what

Charles O. v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50700(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 7, 2025

Similarly, the existence of triable questions of fact with respect to probable cause precludes an award of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity ( see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , 233 AD3d 736 , 738-739 … O. resisted arrest and he can be clearly seen in the camera footage pulling his arms apart as he is being handcuffed. Although Mr.

Charles O. v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50700(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 7, 2025

Similarly, the existence of triable questions of fact with respect to probable cause precludes an award of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity ( see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , 233 AD3d 736 , 738-739 … O. resisted arrest and he can be clearly seen in the camera footage pulling his arms apart as he is being handcuffed. Although Mr.

Carter v. State

139 Misc. 2d 423 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1988

Carter had remarried while in prison) confessed to the subject killing, under a grant of immunity, and admitted her allegations of assault by claimant were fabrications. … Further, while settlement in this context is a matter of defense, when the settling party seeks to limit its effect in said subsequent action, the burden is on him to establish why and to what extent it should be accorded

Rockaway Pacific Corp. v. State

122 Misc. 503 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 15, 1924

If an office be granted by name, all the immunities of that office are taken by implication. Whatever is essential to the enjoyment of the thing granted must be taken by implication. … That such has not been the case, we think, is clearly established by the evidence herein as before stated.

Arias v. State

195 Misc. 2d 64 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 27, 2003

The State Commission of Correction Medical Review Board (hereinafter COC) Summary Report (exhibit 67) found that the Green Haven medical and pharmacy staffs management of decedent’s medication was clearly deficient in not … The DOCS’ Employee Manual (exhibit 8) states: “Controlled substances are not permitted to be possessed, stored, or consumed in any facility except on a valid order or prescription of a qualified physician.

Lee v. State

187 Misc. 268 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 15, 1946

The certificate of the qualified examiners attached to°and constituting a part of the moving papers upon which the order of commitment was made, sets out the following under the caption of “Mental condition”: “Patient is … He still has his common-law action, and this the State, by waiving immunity, makes available to him. Sec. 8, Court of Claims Act.

Chomentowski v. State

60 Misc. 2d 367 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1969

Y. 84, 90 ) has clearly defined the distinction between regular or voidable process and void process in false imprisonment cases, as follows: “Void process is such as the court has no power to award, or has not acquired jurisdiction … In none of these opinions was a determination made that established illegality of imprisonment or detention or negligence and abuse of process.

Zimmerman v. State

76 Misc. 2d 193 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 25, 1973

The ££ delivery” is allegedly established by the fact that the Governor’s counsel sent a copy of the bill to the claimant with a form letter requesting ££ analysis, comments and recommendations ” concerning the bill, which … Y. 517, 520 ), it would likewise be incorrect so to qualify the Governor’s constitutional power to disapprove bills.

Laitenberger v. State

190 Misc. 633 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 16, 1947

Had there been no attempt at all to guard this place of danger, there clearly would have been negligence. (Chisholm v. State of New York, 141 N. Y. 246 .) … section 8 of the Court of Claims Act (formerly § 12-a) must be read together, and that if the damages are suffered by reason of the misfeasance or neglect of -the State, its officers, or employees, the State has waived its immunity

Andrews v. State of New York

19 Misc. 2d 217 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 22, 1959

This again is clearly established by the decision in United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. … section 1007 of the Public Authorities Law is intended to cover the expenses set forth in subdivision 16 of section 30 of the Highway Law, the question is immediately raised as to how this particular witness is in any way qualified

Frank L. Ciminelli Construction Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority

157 Misc. 2d 188 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1992

The court finds that claimant has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the total cost plus overhead and profit amounted to $49,233.49. … It should also be noted that although estimated quantities were not stated in the unit price bid for this item of the work, the contract clearly called for identical systems for both ends of the bridges.

Rosenblatt v. State of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 50325(U) · New York Court of Claims · Mar 27, 2024

Applying these principles to the matter at bar, the State has sufficiently established that the Claim is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed. … Clearly disregarding the specificity requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), claimants submit vague information, lacking dates of occurrence, and rants about deep animosity and disparate treatment toward them, allegedly

Dale Engineering Co. v. State

114 Misc. 233 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1921

This principle of law is clearly stated by Judge Rapallo in Cole v. State of New York, 102 N. Y. 51 . … It simply submits them to the arbitrament of the board of claims, a judicial body established for the purpose of passing upon claims against the State.

Biodiagnostic Labs, Inc. v. State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 51493(U) · New York Court of Claims · Jun 26, 2023

LAW AND ANALYSIS The State's Waiver of Immunity Under Section 8 of The Court of Claims Act The State's waiver of immunity under Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act is conditioned upon movant's compliance with specific conditions … While this standard clearly places a heavier burden upon a party who has filed late than upon one whose claim is timely, it does not require a claimant to establish definitively the merit of the claim, or overcome all legal