You are here: / / FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS...
, ,

FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined claimant’s wrongful death action was properly dismissed because claimant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Court of Claims Act and commenced the claim before the appointment of an administrator of her son’s estate:

” [B]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed'”… . Court of Claims Act § 10(3) provides that a claim to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a state employee must be filed within 90 days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant within such time serves a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim must be filed within two years after the accrual of the claim … . Court of Claims Act § 10(2) provides that a wrongful death claim must be filed within 90 days after the appointment of an executor or administrator of a decedent, unless the claimant within such time serves a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim must be filed within two years after the death of the decedent … .

Here, neither the claim nor the notice of intention to file a claim was filed within 90 days after the accrual of the personal injury claim, and thus, the personal injury claim was not timely. Moreover, since the claim was commenced prior to the claimant’s appointment as administrator of her son’s estate, she failed to comply with the requirements for commencing a wrongful death claim … . The failures to strictly comply with Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3) were jurisdictional defects compelling dismissal of the claim … . Kiesow v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03670, Second Dept 5-23-18

​COURT OF CLAIMS (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF INTENT (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY DEFENDANT SCHOOL DURING THE PANDEMIC CONSTITUTED A TRANSACTION IN NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LONG-ARM STATUTE; BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SHE WAS IN NEW YORK WHEN SHE TOOK THE ONLINE COURSES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Determining Whether Relocation of Custodial Parent is in Best Interests of the Children Explained
INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE BANK COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304; THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN THE BANK’S FAVOR AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE BANK MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND 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

EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION... ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING,...