You are here: / / Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough
, , ,

Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough

The Third Department upheld the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because the notice of claim was not specific enough.  In describing the statutory criteria, the Third Department wrote:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and  the total sum  claimed. “Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant’s] waiver of sovereign immunity and  in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”….   Although “absolute exactness” is not required…, the claim must “‘provide a  sufficiently detailed  description  of  the  particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and  extent of its liability'” … .  Morra v State of New York, 515751, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, EMPLOYEE

You might also like
PETITIONER HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR WITH MOTHER WHO REMAINS MARRIED, PETITION FOR GENETIC TESTING PROPERLY DENIED BASED UPON THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT).
Dismissal of Slip and Fall Case at Summary Judgment Stage Was Premature Where Relevant Evidence Is Entirely Within the Control of the Defendants
Plaintiff Injured Falling Off Operating Table—Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Action Sounded in Medical Malpractice (Rendering It Untimely) or Negligence (Rendering It Timely)
DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DELIBERATELY WITHHELD IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE ABOUT AN EXPERT WITNESS WHEN HIS ATTORNEY PERSUADED HIM TO HIRE THE EXPERT; BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY, A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons
BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ONE OF THE CHILDREN; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Corporation Is a Proper Respondent in an Article 78/Mandamus to Compel Proceeding
ALL EIGHT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXAMINED VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRMENT TO PROVIDE A SOUND EDUCATION TO THE AT-RISK STUDENT POPULATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Re: Duty Owed to Developmentally Disabled Plaintiff for Injury... In Court of Claims Case, Inability to Prove State Was Served with Notice of...