From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1992
186 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 24, 1992

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Lyons, J.).


Neither claimant's notice of intention to file a claim nor the claim itself were filed within the time limitations set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (3). In fact, the notice of intention was not filed until July 10, 1991, which was over two years beyond the accrual date of June 8, 1989. Insofar as the time limitations of the statute are jurisdictional, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim as untimely (see, Smith v State of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 1063; Kurtz v State of New York, 40 A.D.2d 917, affd 33 N.Y.2d 828). We also reject claimant's contention that he falls within the time strictures of Court of Claims Act § 10 (5), wherein a claim may be filed within two years following the termination of a legal disability. Any such defense ended on January 12, 1988 when it was judicially determined that claimant was not an incapacitated person. Given that the notice of intention was not filed until July 10, 1991 and that the claim was not filed until July 22, 1991, claimant failed to satisfy that statutory time provision as well (see, Kurtz v State of New York, supra). There is nothing in the record to support his claim of a continuing legal disability.

Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Baker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1992
186 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Baker v. State

Case Details

Full title:HEZEKIAH E. BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 24, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
587 N.Y.S.2d 801

Citing Cases

Goines v. State

that movant's physical condition did not prevent him from meeting with his attorneys. CCA § 10(5) does not…