Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1912–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Saving v. Stategreen2 sentences2026However, "it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors . . . supported the granting of the claimant's motion" ( Savino v State of New York , 199 AD2d 254, 255 ; see Hersh v State of New York , 230 AD3d 1304 , 1305; Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d at 872). 2023Accordingly, the Court finds that the factor weighs in favor of granting the motion. [*4]Whether the Claim has the Appearance of Merit The sixth and most important factor to be considered is whether the proposed claim has the appearance of merit, as it would be completely futile to permit a defective claim to be filed, subject to dismissal, even if other factors tended to favor the request ( see Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d 871 [2d Dept 2019], lv to app den'd , 35 NY3d 982 [2020]; Savino v State of New York , 199 AD2d 254 [2d Dept 1993]). | 4 | 7 |
Santana v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen2 sentences2023While this standard clearly places a heavier burden upon a party who has filed late than upon one whose claim is timely, it does not require a claimant to establish definitively the merit of the claim, or overcome all legal objections thereto, in order for the Court to grant a motion for late claim relief ( see Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 [Ct Cl 1977]). 2010"In order for a claim to 'appear to be meritorious' . . . it must not be patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective, and . . . the court must find, upon consideration of the entire record, including the proposed claim and any affidavits or exhibits, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists" (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1, 11 [1977]; see also Rizzo v State of New York, 2 Misc 3d 829, 833-834 [2003]). | 1 | 3 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Although no one factor is determinative, “it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion” (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 255 [1993]; see Matter of Martinez v State of New York, 62 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2009]). 2009We agree with the court that the proposed claim did not have merit, and we conclude that “ ‘it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimants’ application]’ ” (Martinez, 62 AD3d at 1226 ). | 1 | 3 |
Rosenhack v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The sixth, final and perhaps most important factor to be considered is whether the proposed claim has the appearance of merit, for it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed, subject to dismissal, even if other factors tended to favor the request (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 255 [2d Dept 1993]; Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729, 730 [2d Dept 1986]; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967, 968 [Ct Cl 1982]; Edward C. 1996Permitting a defective claim to be filed, even if the other statutory factors supported the granting of claimant’s motion, would be meaningless and futile (Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 ; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967 ). | 1 | 3 |
Prusack v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The sixth, final and perhaps most important factor to be considered is whether the proposed claim has the appearance of merit, for it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed, subject to dismissal, even if other factors tended to favor the request (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 255 [2d Dept 1993]; Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729, 730 [2d Dept 1986]; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967, 968 [Ct Cl 1982]; Edward C. 1996Permitting a defective claim to be filed, even if the other statutory factors supported the granting of claimant’s motion, would be meaningless and futile (Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 ; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967 ). | 1 | 3 |
Edward C. Flaherty Corp. v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Flaherty Corp. v State of New York [New York State Parks & Recreation Div.], 102 Misc 2d 438, 440 [Ct Cl 1979]). 1982State Parks & Recreation Div.], 102 Misc 2d 438 ). | 1 | 2 |
Mosher-Simons v. County of Alleganygreen1 sentence2026Here, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the allegedly defamatory statements were written by the Justice in the exercise of his judicial functions, and, thus, "are absolutely privileged, even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious" ( Montesano v State of New York , 11 AD3d 436, 436 ; see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 219 ; Davey v State of New York , 31 AD3d 600, 600 ; Sassower v Finnerty , 96 AD2d 585, 588 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Monkgreen1 sentence2022Further, our review of Supreme Court's oral colloquy evidences that it failed to cure the defective waiver by "ensur[ing] that defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived the appeal waiver" ( People v Mayo , 195 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Harris , 201 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2022], lvs denied 38 NY3d 950 , 952, 954 [2022]; People v Monk , 189 AD3d 1970, 1971 [2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 958 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence2022We therefore find defendant's appeal waiver invalid and his challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling is properly before us ( see People v Stratton , 201 AD3d at 1202; People v Winters , 196 AD3d 847, 849 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 1025 , 1030 [2021]; People v Nichols , 194 AD3d 1114, 1116 [*2][2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 973 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mayogreen1 sentence2022Further, our review of Supreme Court's oral colloquy evidences that it failed to cure the defective waiver by "ensur[ing] that defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived the appeal waiver" ( People v Mayo , 195 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Harris , 201 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2022], lvs denied 38 NY3d 950 , 952, 954 [2022]; People v Monk , 189 AD3d 1970, 1971 [2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 958 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wintersgreen1 sentence2022We therefore find defendant's appeal waiver invalid and his challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling is properly before us ( see People v Stratton , 201 AD3d at 1202; People v Winters , 196 AD3d 847, 849 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 1025 , 1030 [2021]; People v Nichols , 194 AD3d 1114, 1116 [*2][2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 973 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2022Further, our review of Supreme Court's oral colloquy evidences that it failed to cure the defective waiver by "ensur[ing] that defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived the appeal waiver" ( People v Mayo , 195 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Harris , 201 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2022], lvs denied 38 NY3d 950 , 952, 954 [2022]; People v Monk , 189 AD3d 1970, 1971 [2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 958 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Strattongreen1 sentence2022We therefore find defendant's appeal waiver invalid and his challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling is properly before us ( see People v Stratton , 201 AD3d at 1202; People v Winters , 196 AD3d 847, 849 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 1025 , 1030 [2021]; People v Nichols , 194 AD3d 1114, 1116 [*2][2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 973 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2016(Court of Claims Act § 10 [6].) While the presence or absence of any one factor is not deemed controlling, nonetheless “it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion.” (See Ortiz v State of New York, 78 AD3d 1314, 1314 [3d Dept 2010]; Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254 , 255 [2d Dept 1993].) As set forth above, on the facts alleged, there is no legally cognizable basis for bringing the proposed claim against the State of New York. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Penagreen1 sentence2013(See CPL 210.35 [5]; see also People v Pena, 169 Misc 2d 75 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1996, Donnino, J.] [improper grand jury instruction on the law of justification impaired integrity of grand jury].) The defective instruction was not harmless error, but neither was it an intentional error nor was it made in bad faith. | 1 | 1 |
Rizzo v. Stategreen1 sentence2010"In order for a claim to 'appear to be meritorious' . . . it must not be patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective, and . . . the court must find, upon consideration of the entire record, including the proposed claim and any affidavits or exhibits, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists" (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1, 11 [1977]; see also Rizzo v State of New York, 2 Misc 3d 829, 833-834 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Dippolito v. Stategreen1 sentence2010However, "the factor that has been characterized as the most decisive component in determining a motion under Court of Claims § 10 (6) . . . [is] whether the proposed claim appears meritorious" (Dippolito v State of New York, 192 Misc 2d 395, 396 [2002]), "as it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant's motion" (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 254-255 [1993]. | 1 | 1 |
Malek v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Although “the presence or absence of any one factor should not be deemed controlling” (Malek v State of New York, 92 AD2d 659, 659 [1983]), it is evident that “it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion” (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 255 [1993]; see McCarthy v New York State Canal Corp., 244 AD2d 57, 61 [1998], lvs denied 92 NY2d 815 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. New York State Canal Corp.green1 sentence2009Although “the presence or absence of any one factor should not be deemed controlling” (Malek v State of New York, 92 AD2d 659, 659 [1983]), it is evident that “it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion” (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254, 255 [1993]; see McCarthy v New York State Canal Corp., 244 AD2d 57, 61 [1998], lvs denied 92 NY2d 815 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sassower v. Finnerty
green
1 sentence2026Here, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the allegedly defamatory statements were written by the Justice in the exercise of his judicial functions, and, thus, "are absolutely privileged, even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious" ( Montesano v State of New York , 11 AD3d 436, 436 ; see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 219 ; Davey v State of New York , 31 AD3d 600, 600 ; Sassower v Finnerty , 96 AD2d 585, 588 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Montesano v. State
green
1 sentence2026Here, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the allegedly defamatory statements were written by the Justice in the exercise of his judicial functions, and, thus, "are absolutely privileged, even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious" ( Montesano v State of New York , 11 AD3d 436, 436 ; see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 219 ; Davey v State of New York , 31 AD3d 600, 600 ; Sassower v Finnerty , 96 AD2d 585, 588 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
DeLuca v. Blanco
green
1 sentence2026Here, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the allegedly defamatory statements were written by the Justice in the exercise of his judicial functions, and, thus, "are absolutely privileged, even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious" ( Montesano v State of New York , 11 AD3d 436, 436 ; see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 219 ; Davey v State of New York , 31 AD3d 600, 600 ; Sassower v Finnerty , 96 AD2d 585, 588 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sacher v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2025A defective claim cannot be cured by a motion to amend. ( Sacher v State of New York , 211 AD3d 867 , 870 [2d Dept 2022].) Footnote 5: The State insists that the allegations raised in Mr. Breazil's claim "comport[] with Directive 4910, annexed hereto[] as Exhibit B." (Affirmation of defendant's counsel at 32, ¶ 102.) Exhibit B is a version of Directive 4910 that was issued on December 2, 2020. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sinacore v. State
green
1 sentence2008Not only has the defendant waived any objection based upon verification for the reason that it was not rejected as required by CPLR 3022, in addition, the defendant did not comply with the provisions of Court of Claims Act § 11 (c),. which require that any such objection must be stated “with particularity” or it is waived and “the court shall not dismiss the claim for such failure.” In its answer, the defendant asserted, as an eighth affirmative defense, that the claim is “defective for failing to include a proper verification, in accordance with Court of Claims Act Section 11 and Civil Practi | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Mayo
green
1 sentence2007Finally, defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed and the indictment dismissed based on the People’s failure to preserve the alleged narcotics during the pendency of an earlier appeal that resulted in our reversal of the judgment of conviction on defendant’s prior plea of guilty based on a defective waiver of indictment and superior court information (People v Mayo, 21 AD3d 1316 [2005]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kush v. City of Buffalo
green
1 sentence2001Likewise, this case can hardly be analogized to those in which a duty has been imposed upon owners or possessors of hazardous substances to safeguard against unsupervised access by children (see, Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 31 ; Kingsland v Erie County Agric. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Gumbs
green
1 sentence1983Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook (supra), unequivocally holds that a defective stop sign is not a highway defect which requires prior notice (see, also, Johnstown Leather Corp. v City of Gloversville, 56 AD2d 345, 346-347 ; cf. Tully v Town of North Hempstead, 93 AD2d 834 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Tully v. Town of North Hempstead
green
1 sentence1983Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook (supra), unequivocally holds that a defective stop sign is not a highway defect which requires prior notice (see, also, Johnstown Leather Corp. v City of Gloversville, 56 AD2d 345, 346-347 ; cf. Tully v Town of North Hempstead, 93 AD2d 834 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Doremus v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook
green
1 sentence1983Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook (supra), unequivocally holds that a defective stop sign is not a highway defect which requires prior notice (see, also, Johnstown Leather Corp. v City of Gloversville, 56 AD2d 345, 346-347 ; cf. Tully v Town of North Hempstead, 93 AD2d 834 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lunde v. New York World's Fair 1964-65 Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1980(Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 .) The State contends, inter alla, that the application must fail because no physician’s affidavit attesting to the existence of malpractice was submitted, citing O’Halloran v Eller ( 43 AD2d 955 ) and Williams v Giattini ( 49 AD2d 337 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Williams v. Giattini green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Forsyth v. . City of Oswego green | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.