You are here: / / THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED...
,

THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that the notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked:

By notice of motion dated January 6, 2016, the claimants sought leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc, or, alternatively, for leave to file a late notice of claim. A proposed amended notice of intention to file a claim was included with the motion, and it included the verification which was missing from the original. In the order appealed from, the Court of Claims granted the claimants’ motion for leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a “notice of intention to file a claim shall be verified in the same manner as a complaint in an action in the supreme court.” The Court of Appeals has held that “there is no basis for treating an unverified or defectively verified claim or notice of intention any differently than an unverified or defectively verified complaint is treated under the CPLR in Supreme Court” … . Here, as the Court of Claims found, the defendant was not prejudiced by the omission of a verification. Moreover, the court noted that CPLR 2001 permits an omission or defect to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just … . Ordentlich v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04710, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

You might also like
Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Which Is Nearly Identical to a Summary Judgment Motion Already Before the Court Should Be Considered
Comments Made by Dean and Assistant Dean in Their Professional Capacities Protected by a Qualified Privilege
Allegations of a “Conspiracty to Commit Fraud” Survived a Motion for Summary Judgment/Conspiracy Allegations Must Connect Individual Defendants with an Actionable Underlying Tort
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).
Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City
CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DESPITE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT, AFFIDAVIT FROM EXPERT PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFECT FOUND TO BE TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand

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

UNLESS THE PARTIES OPT OUT BY STIPULATION, A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER MAY BE MODIFIED... NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “FALL...