From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunter v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 22, 1944
268 App. Div. 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Opinion

November 22, 1944.

Appeal from Court of Claims.


These three death claims and one personal injury claim arise out of an accident which happened on October 2, 1941, in the town of Parishville, St. Lawrence County, when an automobile in which the individual claimant and the claimants' intestates were riding ran off a State highway and fell into a reservoir. The claimants' attorneys were retained about December 5, 1941, and their preliminary investigations failed to reveal the alleged liability on the part of the State. They first learned this fact on May 1, 1942, and made their motions on June 19, 1942. In the three death cases the beneficiaries of the claimants include eleven small children. Written notice of claimants' intention to file a claim was not filed within ninety days of the appointment of the administrators, which appointments were made on November 12, 1941, and November 17, 1941. The State police made a thorough investigation of the accident and considerable publicity was given to the accident in the newspaper in the city where the State Department of Public Works Division office is located. The Court of Claims denied the motions to file these notices of intention. Orders reversed on the law and facts, with twenty-five dollars costs and disbursements in each claim, and motions granted. All concur. [See post, p. 1073.]


Summaries of

Hunter v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 22, 1944
268 App. Div. 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)
Case details for

Hunter v. State

Case Details

Full title:THORNTON HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Motion No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 22, 1944

Citations

268 App. Div. 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Citing Cases

Lawrence v. State of New York

Following the investigation claimant's attorney made this motion, the ninety-day period having passed.The…