Triani v. State, 44 A.D.3d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Triani v. State, 44 A.D.3d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …sufficient definiteness to enable the state to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances at p. 1032 ✓
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morra v. State (nyappdiv, 2013-06-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morra v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Ctr.], 82 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2011]; Triani v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morra v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Ctr.], 82 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2011]; Triani v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acee v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Pursuant to section 11 (b), a notice of intention to file a claim (hereafter, notice of intent) must set forth, inter alia, “the time when and place where such claim arose.” While the statute does not require “ ‘absolute exactness’ ” (Triani v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1032 [2007]), the notice of intent must set forth the time and place where the claim arose with “ ‘sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances’ ” (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998]; se…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liberty Mutual Insurance v. State
nyclaimsct · 2010 · confidence medium
The law continues to be that strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary.” (Tr iana v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1032-1033 [2d Dept, Oct. 30, 2007] [citations omitted].) That a “strict compliance” standard obtains with respect to section 11 (b) does not change the fact that determining whether a claim adequately describes a particular location will often be a close question which, as a practical matter, can depend upon the nature of the claim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prisco v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Since the statutory requirements of the Court of Claims Act must be strictly construed (see Thomas v State of New York, 57 AD3d 969, 970 [2008]; Triani v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1032-1033 [2007]), the failure of the claimant to set forth in the notice of intention to file a claim the time when the claim arose constituted a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal (see Czynski v State of New York, 53 AD3d 881, 883-884 [2008]; Robin BB. v State of New York, 56 AD3d 932 , 933 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Snickles v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
"The Court of Claims Act does not require [defendant] to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" ( Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d 201, 208 [2003]; see Triani v State of New York , 44 AD3d 1032, 1032-1033 [2d Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited "see" ACEE, MARY ANN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Pursuant to section 11 (b), a notice of intention to file a claim (hereafter, notice of intent) must set forth, inter alia, “the time when and place where such claim arose.” While the statute does not require “ ‘absolute exactness’ ” (Triani v State of New York, 44 AD3d 1032, 1032 ), the notice of intent must set forth the time and place where the claim arose with “ ‘sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances’ ” (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 ; see Triani, 44…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilson v. State
nyclaimsct · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) sets certain specific pleading requirements as substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity, with noncompliance rendering a claim jurisdictionally defective (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207, 209 [2003]; see also Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007] [addressing jurisdictional nature of requirement to plead a total sum claimed]). 3 One such pleading requirement is a recitation of the “place where such claim arose.” The failure to adequately set forth the location of an incident is a jurisdictional defect th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moises Triani
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 30, 2007.
44 A.D.3d 1032
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J), dated August 30, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion is granted.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires, inter alia, that a claim set forth the place where the claim arose. While section 11 (b) does not require “absolute exactness,” a claim must set forth the nature of the claim and the time and place where it arose (see Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998]). It must do so with “ ‘sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances’ ” (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 [1980]).

Section 11 (b) was recently amended to eliminate the requirement in certain types of cases, including personal injury cases, that the claim allege the total sum claimed (see L 2007, ch 606, § 1; Kerin v City Univ. of N.Y., 43 AD3d 1110 [2007]; Moore v State of New York, 43 AD3d 1117 [2007]). The recent amendment, however, leaves in place the remaining requirements of section 11 (b), such as the requirement that the claim allege the place where it arose. The law continues to be that strict compli[*1033] ance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary (see Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 276 [2006]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-208 [2003]; Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159, 163-164 [2001]).

In this case, the claim’s description of the accident location was not sufficiently definite to satisfy section 11 (b), and thus the claim was jurisdictionally defective (see Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498, 499 [1996]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim should have been granted.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.