Cunningham v. State, 422 N.E.2d 821 (NY 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Cunningham v. State, 422 N.E.2d 821 (NY 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pearson v. City Of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
Mar, 24, 2022). “[A]ecrual of a cause of action for [1983] abuse of process need not await the termination of an action in claimant’s favor.” Pinter v. City of New York, 976 F. Supp. 2d 539, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Cunningham v. State, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Behrens v. City of Buffalo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
We reject plaintiffs' contention that the claim did not accrue until the criminal charges were dismissed against plaintiff ( see Cunningham v State of New York , 53 NY2d 851, 853 [1981]; Keller v Butler , 246 NY 249, 255 [1927]; see generally Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp. , 81 NY2d 90, 94 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Faulkner
N.D.N.Y. · 2021 · confidence medium
July 2, 2019) (citing Cunningham v. State of New York, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1981)) (“It is clear... that the accrual of a cause of action for abuse of process need not await the termination of an action in claimant’s favor.”); see also Jianjun Li v. Vill. of Saddle Rock, 2021 WL 1193618 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cunningham v. State of New York, 53 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1981) (“It is clear . . . that the accrual of a cause of action for abuse of process need not await the termination of an action in claimant’s favor . . . .”); see also Galgano v. Cty. of Putnam, 16cv3572(KMK), 2018 WL 4757968 , at *32 (S.D.N.Y.
cited Cited "see" X-Act Contracting Corp. v. Flanders
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 174 AD2d 470 [1st Dept 1991]; see Cunningham v State of New York, 77 AD2d 756, 757 [3d Dept 1980], mod on other grounds 53 NY2d 851 [1981]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." W. Stanford Blalock v. Preston Law Group, P.C.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See, also, Cunningham v. State, 422 N.E.2d 821, 822 (N.Y. 1981); Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 577 N.W.2d 393, 400 (Iowa 1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patrick J. Cunningham, Respondent-Appellant,
v.
State of New York, Appellant-Respondent
Claim 61891.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 5, 1981.
422 N.E.2d 821
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Peter J. Dooley and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for appellant-respondent., Marc S. Krieg for respondent-appellant.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendant State of New York, by dismissing claimant’s cause of action for abuse of process and, as so modified, affirmed. The question certified is answered in the negative.

The threshold inquiry in regard to claimant’s cause of action for abuse of process is whether that claim is timely under subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, which provides: “3. A claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injury caused by the tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed within ninety days after the accrual of such claim unless the claimant shall within such time file a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed within two years after the accrual of such claim.” Claimant contends, among other things, that his notice of intention was timely because it was filed within 90 days of the dismissal of the indictments which had been found against him. It is clear, however, that the accrual of a cause of action for abuse of process need not await the termination of an action in claimant’s favor (see Keller v Butler, 246 NY 249). Upon the record before us, we must conclude that claimant’s notice was untimely.

We have considered claimant’s contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order modified, with costs to defendant State of New York, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.