Ivy v. State, 27 A.D.3d 1190 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Ivy v. State, 27 A.D.3d 1190 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carey v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Court of Claims Act § 10 (3), concerning the timing of a notice of intent or a claim, . . . deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction requiring dismissal of the claim" ( Gang v State of New York , 177 AD3d 1300 , 1301 [4th Dept 2019]; see Hatzfeld v State of New York , 104 AD3d 1165, 1166 [4th Dept 2013]; Ivy v State of New York , 27 AD3d 1190, 1190-1191 [4th Dept 2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Torres v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We conclude that the Court of Claims properly granted the cross motion inasmuch as the claim was not filed and served nor was a notice of intention to file a claim served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the accrual of the claim (see § 10 [3]; Ivy v State of New York, 27 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Torres v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We conclude that the Court of Claims properly granted the cross motion inasmuch as the claim was not filed and served nor was a notice of intention to file a claim served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the accrual of the claim (see § 10 [3]; Ivy v State of New York, 27 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maude V. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Failure to comply with the statutory filing and service requirements deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction and compels dismissal of the claim (see Langner v State of New York, 65 AD3d 780, 781 [2009]; Czynski v State of New York, 53 AD3d 881, 883 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]; Matter of Best v State of New York, 42 AD3d 699, 700 [2007]; Ivy v State of New York, 27 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (3), "[a] claim to recover damages for . . . personal injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim." It is we…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willie Ivy
v.
State of New York
Claim No. 106270.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 17, 2006.
27 A.D.3d 1190
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renée Forgensi Minarik, J.), entered September 11, 2003 in a medical malpractice action. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly granted defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the claim because the claim[*1191] was not filed and served nor was a notice of intention to file a claim served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the accrual of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3). Although claimant was entitled to apply for permission to file a late claim before the statute of limitations expired (see § 10 [6]), he did not do so. The failure to file and serve a claim or to serve a notice of intention to file a claim upon the Attorney General within the statutorily prescribed period “is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim” (Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-498 [2001]; see Carter v State of New York, 284 AD2d 810 [2001]; Park v State of New York, 226 AD2d 153 [1996]; see generally Lyles v State of New York, 3 NY3d 396, 400-401 [2004]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.