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.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dreger v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen2 sentences2025The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance as a precondition of suit against the State ( see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth. , 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). 2025The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance as a precondition of suit against the State ( see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth. , 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). | 3 | 3 |
Santana v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen1 sentence2003(Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1, 11 [1977].) The State argues that the claim is meritless because it fails to comply with section 11 of the Court of Claims Act. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caci v. State
green
1 sentence2016(Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [3d Dept 2013], citing Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992].) Here, although the claim was timely filed with the court on May 2, 2016—which was the 90th day after the claim accrued—it was not timely served upon the Attorney General’s office. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Santangelo v. State
green
1 sentence1985Claimant has sued the State contending that such monthly premium reductions constituted distributions within the intendment of subdivision 2 of section 163 of the Civil Service Law, which mandates a pro rata distribution to the same agencies whose unused premiums made up the dividends. * Relying on the rule confirmed in Tango v Tulevech ( 61 NY2d 34 ), the State argues that the claim should have been dismissed because the actions of the President of the Civil Service Commission were discretionary and thus reviewable only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, also, Santangelo v State of New Yor | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brady v. County of Tioga
green
1 sentence1985Claimant has sued the State contending that such monthly premium reductions constituted distributions within the intendment of subdivision 2 of section 163 of the Civil Service Law, which mandates a pro rata distribution to the same agencies whose unused premiums made up the dividends. * Relying on the rule confirmed in Tango v Tulevech ( 61 NY2d 34 ), the State argues that the claim should have been dismissed because the actions of the President of the Civil Service Commission were discretionary and thus reviewable only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, also, Santangelo v State of New Yor | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Tango v. Tulevech
green
1 sentence1985Claimant has sued the State contending that such monthly premium reductions constituted distributions within the intendment of subdivision 2 of section 163 of the Civil Service Law, which mandates a pro rata distribution to the same agencies whose unused premiums made up the dividends. * Relying on the rule confirmed in Tango v Tulevech ( 61 NY2d 34 ), the State argues that the claim should have been dismissed because the actions of the President of the Civil Service Commission were discretionary and thus reviewable only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, also, Santangelo v State of New Yor | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Wright & Kremers, Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence1958Next, the State argues that the clause forbidding any claim for damages for delay is a bar to the claim but it has been held that such clause does not bar a claim for damages due to the State’s aetive and direct interference with the performance of the work (Wright & Kremers v. State of New York, 263 N. Y. 615 , modfg. 238 App. Div. 260 ; Waples Co. v. State of New York, 178 App. Div. 357 ). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
W. L. Waples Co. v. State
neutral
1 sentence1958Next, the State argues that the clause forbidding any claim for damages for delay is a bar to the claim but it has been held that such clause does not bar a claim for damages due to the State’s aetive and direct interference with the performance of the work (Wright & Kremers v. State of New York, 263 N. Y. 615 , modfg. 238 App. Div. 260 ; Waples Co. v. State of New York, 178 App. Div. 357 ). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Wright & Kremers, Inc. v. State
neutral
1 sentence1958Next, the State argues that the clause forbidding any claim for damages for delay is a bar to the claim but it has been held that such clause does not bar a claim for damages due to the State’s aetive and direct interference with the performance of the work (Wright & Kremers v. State of New York, 263 N. Y. 615 , modfg. 238 App. Div. 260 ; Waples Co. v. State of New York, 178 App. Div. 357 ). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.