Case law

Weitz v. State

182 Misc. 2d 320 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 15, 1999

“Clearly, there is a need to balance a tenant’s ability to recover for an injury caused by the landlord’s negligence against *328 a landlord’s ability to avoid liability when its conduct did not cause any injury. … Claimant has attempted to establish an unsecured entrance through various means.

Terranova v. State

111 Misc. 2d 1089 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1982

Claimant’s former brother-in-law additionally testified that he did not consider himself a half-owner of the boat and the evidence clearly established that Mr. Terranova paid all bills connected with the boat. … We find without merit defendant’s contention that its police “were immune from any damage caused by the warrant”, under the authority of Ford v State of New York ( 21 AD2d 437 ).

Cody H. v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 25162 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 16, 2025

If the claimant does so, the defendant may still not be liable if it can prove it is entitled to the defense of governmental immunity. [*4]A. … immunity ( Applewhite , 21 NY3d at 425 ).

Curtis M. v. State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 23419 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 27, 2023

Applying these principles to the matter at bar, the claimant has sufficiently established grounds for renewal of the prior Decision & Order dated April 11, 2022. … Although the Court of Claims granted the State's prior motion because the claimant did not adequately plead the "time when" the Claim arose ( see M. v State, supra ), the Appellate Division's decisions in Fenton and Meyer clearly

Gielskie v. State

18 Misc. 2d 508 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 17, 1959

It becomes my task to decide whether or not they establish a cause of action. … The State’s role in this instance is clearly distinguishable from its part in two fairly recent cases relied upon by the Attorney-General to defeat recovery herein. In Parker v. State of New York ( 280 App.

Sutherland v. State

189 Misc. 953 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 7, 1947

He duly qualified as such administrator, and since that date has been acting as such. … Its consent must waive not only its immunity from being sued at all, but also its immunity from liability.

Dellecave v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 51586(U) · New York Court of Claims · Aug 21, 2025

Applying these principles to the matter at bar, the State has established its entitlement to the dismissal of the instant Claim for untimeliness. … This is in contravention with Court of Claims Act § 10(6), which clearly states that the claim proposed to be filed shall accompany the application.

Meyer v. State

92 Misc. 2d 996 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1978

The State is clearly not an insurer against accidents resulting from the natural character of an area such as a park. (See Schumm v State of New York, 12 AD2d 682 .) … No award is made for loss of services for the reason that Robert Meyer failed to establish what services were actually lost by reason of the injury and the value thereof.

Gonzalez v. State

121 Misc. 2d 210 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1983

A person may be admitted under section 9.39 of the Mental Hygiene Law “only if a staff physician of the hospital upon examination of such person finds that such person qualifies under the requirements of this section.” … No expert testimony is required to establish that these emotional disturbances were proximately caused by and naturally flowed from this experience. (Meiselman v Crown Hgts.

Theodore Barry & Associates v. State

155 Misc. 2d 243 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 6, 1992

BACKGROUND Claimant Theodore Barry & Associates (TB&A) is a California corporation qualified to conduct business in this State. … If an identical contract with another State official (the Commissioner of any agency, for example) were involved or if the contract in question were for something clearly dissimilar to the Comptroller’s governmental power

Banner Milling Co. v. State

117 Misc. 33 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1921

The meaning of the term “ property ’* is firmly established. … The legislative intent to exclude good will as an item of damage thus clearly is established.

Village of Hudson Falls v. State

14 Misc. 304 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1920

The claimant on the trial established the amount of damages sustained by such abutting owners and also the fact that it paid the same. … While it is true that the state in consequence of its sovereignty is immune from prosecution in its own courts yet the state may waive such immunity, assume liability and confer upon tribunals jurisdiction to hear, try and

Maloney v. State

207 Misc. 894 · New York Court of Claims · May 3, 1955

The language of the act makes it plain that the right and correlative liability thereby established are conditional upon the bringing of the suit in a court which gives the right of trial by jury. … Code Annot., tit. 46, pp. 240, 241.) 1 ‘ Statutes in derogation of the sovereignty of a state must be strictly construed and a waiver of immunity from liability must be clearly expressed.” (Smith v.

Vega v. State

10 Misc. 3d 822 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 13, 2005

For all of the reasons set forth above, claimants have failed to introduce sufficient credible evidence, admissible in this court, to establish the negligence of DOT and further failed to establish that the alleged negligence … Whether such distinction exists in New York State, and what the qualifying criteria might be, has been left for another day. . Mr. Bellizzi based this estimate upon nonprecluded material.

Donald v. State

24 Misc. 3d 329 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 5, 2009

The privilege arises from the exercise of “discretionary authority for which the State has absolute immunity” (Holloway, 285 AD2d at 766 ). … The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in a habeas corpus proceeding, citing long-established principles clearly articulated by the United States Supreme Court, considered whether DOCS could administratively

Cathedral Academy v. State

77 Misc. 2d 977 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 2, 1974

and that, therefore, any claim that these services were performed on representations of the State clearly is without merit and, in any case, it had no right to so rely. … Such standards or guidelines are to be established by the Legislature, not the courts.

Gardner v. State

166 Misc. 113 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 9, 1938

In other words, if no fault or negligence is chargeable to either of the parties to the occurrence upon which the action is founded, the loss and injury will be allowed to remain where it has fallen, or, if negligence is established … case, was not of such a nature that could be defined as negligence, and, further, that the injury complained of was not one which an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person .ought to have foreseen; in other words, this was clearly

Roberts v. State

4 Misc. 3d 768 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 21, 2004

Claimants clearly have not set forth a separate cause of action for de facto appropriation. … It is well established that a jurisdictional defect may not be corrected by amendment (see, Manshul Constr. Corp. v State Ins.

Dennison v. State

49 Misc. 2d 533 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1966

The Supreme Court’s decision clearly overruled People ex rel. Brown v. Johnston (9 N Y 2d 482) and People ex rel. Kamisaroff v. … Independent tests administered by three highly qualified psychologists subsequent to claimant’s discharge from Dannemora conclusively established that the claimant possessed average intelligence and that he could not possibly

Town of Vienna v. State

203 Misc. 1053 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 26, 1953

Claimant is a municipal corporation established under the Laws of the State of New York and located in the County of Oneida, New York. 2. … Such action would be clearly beyond their authority, illegal and void. (Burbank v. Fay, 65 N. Y. 57, 66, 67 .) II.