necessary elements claim in New York

1989It is a long-established principle that this court, in the case of a timely filed notice of intention which embodies all the necessary elements of a claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 11), may consider such a notice of intention a valid timely filed claim against the State (see, Chalmers & Son v State of New York, 271 App Div 699 , affd 297 NY 690 ; Liberty Mut.

1989Memorandum: Where, as here, each claimant filed a document within the statutory period prescribed in Court of Claims Act § 10 and the document embodied all of the necessary elements of a claim (Court of Claims Act § 11), the Court of Claims properly determined that each document constituted a valid, timely filed claim against the State (see, Chalmers & Son v State of New York, 271 App Div 699 , affd 297 NY 690 ; Carnesi v State of New York, 140 AD2d 912, 913 ; Jacobs v State of New York, 129 AD2d 772 ; Liberty Mut.

2025Doing so, the Complaint contains allegations of the necessary elements of a claim for breach of contract ( Prendergast v. Swiencicky , 183 AD3d 945 [3d Dept 2020]).

2002Assoc. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486 ). 1 The complaint alleges the necessary elements of a claim for common-law fraud: defendant’s knowing misrepresentation of a material fact, made with intent to deceive, plaintiff’s reason able reliance, and damages (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233, 234 ).

2002Assoc. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486 ). 1 The complaint alleges the necessary elements of a claim for common-law fraud: defendant’s knowing misrepresentation of a material fact, made with intent to deceive, plaintiff’s reason able reliance, and damages (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233, 234 ).

1989Memorandum: Where, as here, each claimant filed a document within the statutory period prescribed in Court of Claims Act § 10 and the document embodied all of the necessary elements of a claim (Court of Claims Act § 11), the Court of Claims properly determined that each document constituted a valid, timely filed claim against the State (see, Chalmers & Son v State of New York, 271 App Div 699 , affd 297 NY 690 ; Carnesi v State of New York, 140 AD2d 912, 913 ; Jacobs v State of New York, 129 AD2d 772 ; Liberty Mut.

1989Memorandum: Where, as here, each claimant filed a document within the statutory period prescribed in Court of Claims Act § 10 and the document embodied all of the necessary elements of a claim (Court of Claims Act § 11), the Court of Claims properly determined that each document constituted a valid, timely filed claim against the State (see, Chalmers & Son v State of New York, 271 App Div 699 , affd 297 NY 690 ; Carnesi v State of New York, 140 AD2d 912, 913 ; Jacobs v State of New York, 129 AD2d 772 ; Liberty Mut.

1987Auth., 120 AD2d 509 ).

1987Finally, the court properly refused to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar the defendant from asserting the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense (see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442 ; McIvor v Di Benedetto, 121 AD2d 519 ), since the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of that doctrine (see, Scharfman v National Jewish Hosp. & Research Center, 122 AD2d 939 ; Rains v Metropolitan Transp.

1987Finally, the court properly refused to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar the defendant from asserting the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense (see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442 ; McIvor v Di Benedetto, 121 AD2d 519 ), since the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of that doctrine (see, Scharfman v National Jewish Hosp. & Research Center, 122 AD2d 939 ; Rains v Metropolitan Transp.

1986The history of the Court of Appeals decisions which have considered the necessary elements of the defense of justification, beginning with Shorter v People ( 2 NY 193 ) in 1849 and terminating with People v Collice ( 41 NY2d 906 ) in 1977, lends considerable support for the view that a jury, in considering a claim of self-defense, must be instructed that some objective measure or community standard must be added to the actor’s personal apprehensions before his use of deadly force is justified.