Crum & Foster Ins. v. State, 25 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Crum & Foster Ins. v. State, 25 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roye v. State of New York
nyclaimsct · 2010 · confidence medium
Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]; see also Williams v State of New York, 235 AD2d 776 [1997] lv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997] ["Court of Claims § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim but only if the application is made within the applicable Statute of Limitations period"]; Marine Midland Bank, N.A., v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871, 872 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993] ["claimant is permitted to file a late claim only if the underlying cause of action is not time barred"]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lockley v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]), leave to amend a claim may be granted “in furtherance of justice for any error in form or substance” (Court of Claims Act § 9 [8]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sanchez v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gardner v. City University of New York
nyclaimsct · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Second Department reversed in both cases, holding that “[o]nce the applicable limitations period expired . . . , the court was without authority either to entertain a subsequent motion to extend the time to file a late claim, or, sua sponte, to grant such relief’ (Roberts, 41 AD3d at 826 ; see also Crum & Foster, 25 AD3d at 644 [“a motion for leave to serve a late claim may not be entertained after the statute of limitations for a like claim against a citizen of the state has expired” (internal quotation marks omitted)]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crum and Foster Insurance Co., as Subrogee of Pride Products Corp.
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 24, 2006.
25 A.D.3d 643
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

In a subrogation claim to recover damages paid by the plaintiff to its insureds, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano,[*644] J.), dated September 9, 2004, as, on the court’s own motion made upon notice, granted the claimant leave to serve and file a properly verified claim within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision of the order dated September 9, 2004, which granted the claimant leave to serve and file a properly verified claim is deleted.

The instant claim is for property damages and damages for personal injuries incurred in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 1, 2001. In a prior order dated February 18, 2004, and filed March 4, 2004, the claimant was granted leave to file a late claim within 30 days of the filing of that order. No appeal was taken from that order.

The claimant filed the late claim on April 8, 2004, more than 30 days after the filing of the order on March 4, 2004. By letter dated April 8, 2004, the Attorney General elected to treat the claim as a nullity pursuant to CPLR 3022 on the ground that it was not properly verified.

No further action was taken by the claimant. By order to show cause dated July 7, 2004, the Court of Claims, on its own motion, directed the parties to submit papers so it could determine whether the claimant complied with Court of Claims Act § 11. After the parties made their submissions, the Court of Claims, in an order dated September 9, 2004, dismissed the claim filed in April 2004. The claimant took no appeal from that provision.

The order dated September 9, 2004, further directed the claimant to serve and file a properly verified claim within 30 days. The appellant claims that the Court of Claims improperly granted this relief since the three-year statute of limitations for claims for personal injuries and property damages (see CPLR 214) expired before July 7, 2004, when the Court of Claims on its own motion directed the parties to submit papers so it could determine whether the claimant complied with Court of Claims Act § 11.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) provides that a motion for leave to serve a late claim may not be entertained after the statute of limitations for a “like claim against a citizen of the state” has expired (see Oakley v State of New York, 283 AD2d 469 [2001]). Since the three-year statute of limitations for causes of action to recover property damages and damages for personal injuries expired before July 7, 2004, the Court of Claims improperly granted the claimant relief. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.