verification requirement in New York

2013Such evidence is not required and was cumulative considering the expert’s testimony that she personally verified the calibration each day, including the day that she weighed the substance at issue (see People v Parker, 84 AD3d at 1509-1510 ; People v Rotundo, 194 AD2d 943, 946 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 726 [1993]; compare People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700-701 [1986]; People v English, 103 AD2d 979, 980 [1984]).

2013Such evidence is not required and was cumulative considering the expert’s testimony that she personally verified the calibration each day, including the day that she weighed the substance at issue (see People v Parker, 84 AD3d at 1509-1510 ; People v Rotundo, 194 AD2d 943, 946 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 726 [1993]; compare People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700-701 [1986]; People v English, 103 AD2d 979, 980 [1984]).

2006In Martin v State of New York ( 185 Misc 2d 799 [2000, Corbett, J.]), which the court characterizes as a case of first impression, the verification requirement of section 11 (b) was held to be a nonwaivable jurisdictional requirement, i.e., whether defendant followed the rejection procedure of CPLR 3022 was irrelevant.

2000Recently, Judge Corbett of this court held in a case of apparent first impression that the verification requirement was jurisdictional and that an unverified claim had to be dismissed (see, Martin v State of New York, 185 Misc 2d 799 ).

2015Mr. Austin had been convicted (along with his half brother Alvena Jeannette) of the murder of Ronnie Durant during an attempted robbery on September 10, 1985, and Austin was sentenced to 18 years to life on August 18, 1988 (People v Austin, 168 AD2d 502 [2d Dept 1990], lv denied 78 NY2d 953 [1991]).

2008Claimant initially filed a timely claim that was dismissed because it was verified only by his attorney and thus failed to comply with the verification requirement of Court of Claims Act § 8-b (4) (Taylor v State of New York, 33 AD3d 438 [2006], citing Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269 [2006]).

2008Contrary to claimant’s argument, CPLR 205 (a), which allows recommencement of actions that were terminated not on the merits within six months of the dismissal, does not apply to claims under Court of Claims Act § 8-b, the requirements of which must be strictly construed and the terms of which make no reference to the CPLR (see Long, 7 NY3d at 276 ).

2008Claimant initially filed a timely claim that was dismissed because it was verified only by his attorney and thus failed to comply with the verification requirement of Court of Claims Act § 8-b (4) (Taylor v State of New York, 33 AD3d 438 [2006], citing Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269 [2006]).

2004Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986].) The verification requirement exists in order for insurers to have the opportunity to promptly investigate and respond to legitimate claims, not to delay payment.

2002To the extent that the arguments here address the absence of notarization of the verifications, given the claimant’s unrefuted lack of access to the services of a notary, I find that the defendant is estopped from raising such question (Francis v State of New York, 155 Misc 2d 1006 ). 2 The entire question however becomes somewhat moot, because the defendant raises issues only with respect to the question of verification of the notice of intention, not the verification of the claim itself, served just some 11 days after the notice of intention.

1995Unlike the specifications involving the format, binding, and filing of petitions, the verification requirement is directly aimed at preventing fraud (compare, Matter of Hogan [Montgomery] v Goodspeed, 196 AD2d 675, 677-678 , affd 82 NY2d 710 ).

1995Unlike the specifications involving the format, binding, and filing of petitions, the verification requirement is directly aimed at preventing fraud (compare, Matter of Hogan [Montgomery] v Goodspeed, 196 AD2d 675, 677-678 , affd 82 NY2d 710 ).

1984The defect was at most an irregularity resulting through inadvertence on the part of petitioner’s attorney in asserting a premature return date.” H In our view, the verification requirement of section 706 is “a matter of form that can be later amended to conform with the statutory mandate where no substantial prejudice has occurred from the irregularities therein” (Lee & Le Forestier, Review and Reduction of Real Property Assessments In New York, § 3.06, pp 118-119; cf. Matter of Ferro v Lavine, 46 AD2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Sardino v Finch, 35 AD2d 686 [the failure to file a verified petition,

1984The defect was at most an irregularity resulting through inadvertence on the part of petitioner’s attorney in asserting a premature return date.” H In our view, the verification requirement of section 706 is “a matter of form that can be later amended to conform with the statutory mandate where no substantial prejudice has occurred from the irregularities therein” (Lee & Le Forestier, Review and Reduction of Real Property Assessments In New York, § 3.06, pp 118-119; cf. Matter of Ferro v Lavine, 46 AD2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Sardino v Finch, 35 AD2d 686 [the failure to file a verified petition,

1984The defect was at most an irregularity resulting through inadvertence on the part of petitioner’s attorney in asserting a premature return date.” H In our view, the verification requirement of section 706 is “a matter of form that can be later amended to conform with the statutory mandate where no substantial prejudice has occurred from the irregularities therein” (Lee & Le Forestier, Review and Reduction of Real Property Assessments In New York, § 3.06, pp 118-119; cf. Matter of Ferro v Lavine, 46 AD2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Sardino v Finch, 35 AD2d 686 [the failure to file a verified petition,

1982The opinion also relies on Matter of Bristol v Buck ( 201 App Div 100, 102 , affd 234 NY 504 ) wherein the court stated that the word verified as used in a statute “ordinarily imports a verity attested by the sanctity of an oath.” Having examined the consent in light of these definitions, this court concludes that the document herein constitutes a verified statement sufficient to form a basis for this USDL proceeding under subdivision 5 of section 33 of the Domestic Relations Law.

1982The opinion also relies on Matter of Bristol v Buck ( 201 App Div 100, 102 , affd 234 NY 504 ) wherein the court stated that the word verified as used in a statute “ordinarily imports a verity attested by the sanctity of an oath.” Having examined the consent in light of these definitions, this court concludes that the document herein constitutes a verified statement sufficient to form a basis for this USDL proceeding under subdivision 5 of section 33 of the Domestic Relations Law.

1973Plaintiffs have pointed to the “ landmark ” decision of Teresta v. City of New York ( 304 N. Y. 440 ) wherein it was held that acts and conduct of the city in the treatment of a claim against it operated as a waiver of the statutory requirement for notice to be served upon an appropriate agent either personally or by registered mail.

1942Moreover if regarded as a verification it is such by the notary public while the statute requires that the verification shall be by the teachers.” In the case of Cotriss v. Village of Medina ( 139 App. Div. 872 [Fourth Dept.], affd., 206 N. Y. 713 ), Spring, J., in passing upon the necessity for the verification of the claim, said in part, at page 874: “ If the claimant verifies a claim which contains material false statements intentionally made they may be the foundation of an indictment for perjury.

1942Moreover if regarded as a verification it is such by the notary public while the statute requires that the verification shall be by the teachers.” In the case of Cotriss v. Village of Medina ( 139 App. Div. 872 [Fourth Dept.], affd., 206 N. Y. 713 ), Spring, J., in passing upon the necessity for the verification of the claim, said in part, at page 874: “ If the claimant verifies a claim which contains material false statements intentionally made they may be the foundation of an indictment for perjury.

1942In Ayers v. City of Buffalo ( 233 App. Div. 330 [Fourth Dept.]), the city charter provided for the verification of the claim.