COLOMBO v. STATE, 135 A.D.3d 804 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160120357
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The requirements of Court of Claims Act 10 (3) as to when a notice of claim or claim is to be filed are strictly construed. A failure to comply with those requirements is a jurisdictional defect that compels dismissal of the claim ( see Welch v State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 496 , 497-498 [2001]). Here, the Court of Claims correctly determined that the claim was untimely, and properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim ( see Be
Summary: Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The requirements of Court of Claims Act 10 (3) as to when a notice of claim or claim is to be filed are strictly construed. A failure to comply with those requirements is a jurisdictional defect that compels dismissal of the claim ( see Welch v State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 496 , 497-498 [2001]). Here, the Court of Claims correctly determined that the claim was untimely, and properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim ( see Ben..
More
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The requirements of Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) as to when a notice of claim or claim is to be filed are strictly construed. A failure to comply with those requirements is a jurisdictional defect that compels dismissal of the claim (see Welch v State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 496, 497-498 [2001]). Here, the Court of Claims correctly determined that the claim was untimely, and properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim (see Bennett v State of New York, 106 A.D.3d 1040, 1040-1041 [2013]; Prisco v State of New York, 62 A.D.3d 978, 978 [2009]).
The parties' remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.
Source: Leagle
