From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. Brooklyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2007
40 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-07852.

May 8, 2007.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, J.), dated June 28, 2006, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).

Peter E. Tangredi, White Plains, N.Y. (Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan and Jennifer Grace Miller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the claim for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is denied.

The Court of Appeals has recently stated that a claim against the State "may always be amended at a later time, if necessary" ( Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281). Under the particular facts of this case, where the state hospital had full and complete knowledge of the facts upon which the claim was based even before the claim was filed, and where the verified bill of particulars filed four months after the claim and well within the two-year statute of limitations, fully described each of the elements required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), we deem the claim sufficient.


Summaries of

Oliver v. Brooklyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2007
40 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Oliver v. Brooklyn

Case Details

Full title:YVONNE OLIVER et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK (SUNY) HEALTH…

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

Date published: May 8, 2007

Citations

40 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4090
833 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Donahue v. State

I also disagree with the majority's suggestion that the possibility of a bill of particulars means that…