Grumet v. State, 256 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Grumet v. State, 256 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scheffer v. State of New York (nyclaimsct, 2025-10-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scheffer v. State of New York (2×)
nyclaimsct · 2025 · confidence medium
In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required" ( Grumet v State of New York , 256 AD2d 441, 442 [2d Dept 1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
"While Court of Claims Act § 11(b) does not require absolute exactness, it requires a statement made 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 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wharton v City Univ. of N.Y. , 287 AD2d 559 ; Cobin v State of New York , 234 AD2d 498, 499 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dominguez v. State of New York
nyclaimsct · 2023 · confidence medium
Footnote 4: In the context of considering so much of CCA § 11(b) that requires a claimant to describe with particularity when a claim arose, the Second Department has recently limited language in Rodriguez which suggested that "substantial compliance" with section 11(b) suffices to permit the Court of Claims to exercise jurisdiction over an alleged claim against the State ( Sacher v State of New York , 2022 NY Slip Op 07087 , 2022 WL 17660520 , at *5 [2d Dept 2022] [citing Rodriguez , 8 AD3d at 647 , Wharton v City Univ. of NY , 287 AD2d 559, 559 (2d Dept 2001), and Grumet v State of New York…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In this wrongful death and medical malpractice claim, the Court of Claims properly determined that so much of the claim as sought to recover damages for the conscious pain and suffering of the claimant’s decedent failed to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 208 [2003]; Rodriguez v State of New York, 8 AD3d 647 [2004]; Cendales v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1165, 1167 [2003]; Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acee v. State
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) Triani v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
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]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rodriguez v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998], quoting Heisler v State of New York, supra).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wharton v. City University of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 ; see, Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zachary Grumet
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 16, 1998.
256 A.D.2d 441
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13478
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

—In a claim to recover[*442] damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered November 3, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant State of New York to dismiss the claim on the ground that the notice of intention to file a claim and the claim were insufficient to provide the defendants with notice of the condition which allegedly caused the accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant State of New York.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a notice of intention to file a claim and the claim must set forth the time and place in which the claim arose, and the nature of the claim. While Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) does not require “absolute exactness”, it requires a statement made with “sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State. In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767; see, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865). However, “conclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to [state] the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet its requirements” (Heisler v State of New York, supra, at 767-768; see also, Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d 147, affd 45 NY2d 885).

In the instant case, the notice of intention to file a claim only stated that the claimant slipped and fell without any indication as to what allegedly caused him to slip and fall. The claim merely alleged that the State was “careless, reckless and negligent”. There was nothing in the language of either the notice of intention to file a claim or the claim which would have alerted the defendants as to the nature of the alleged negligence. Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Thompson, JJ., concur.