You are here: / / SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11,...

SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the claim in this traffic accident case was properly dismissed because it was served by regular mail:

On March 16, 2011, the claimant was driving on Sunrise Highway and, after missing his exit, attempted to cut across the strip of land separating Sunrise Highway from the exit ramp, losing control of his vehicle and sustaining injuries. After being granted permission to file a late notice of claim, the claimant served the claim on the State of New York by regular mail. The State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that service was improper, as it was not made in accordance with Court of Claims Act § 11. The claimant cross-moved for the court to deem its notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The Court of Claims granted the motion and denied the cross motion. The claimant appeals, and we affirm.

We agree with the Court of Claims' determination to grant the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, as the claim was improperly served upon the State by regular mail rather than by personal service or certified mail as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 … . Costello v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 9-25-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Raised about Whether Injury at Summer Day Camp Resulted from Inadequate Supervision
MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT TESTIFY THE STAIRWAY VIOLATED ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THE EXPERT COULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION VIOLATED A CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AS REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS STANDARDS; THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Negotiations Precluded Imposing Restitution at Sentencing
FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (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

ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE... PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S...