City of New York v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. City of New York v. State

    87 Misc. 2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1976)

    A trial that hardly involved complex issues and consisted, during that moment of truth, of possibly 45 minutes of testimony, 13 exhibits, and one appraisal report. This claim was deemed timely filed by the Appellate Division ( 49 A.D.2d 661) which affirmed a memorandum decision of this court entered May 15, 1972 denying a motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The claim arises from a condemnation proceeding instituted in 1963 by the city, pursuant to former section 340-b (subd 5) of the Highway Law.

  2. Long Island Light v. State

    89 Misc. 2d 816 (N.Y. Misc. 1977)   Cited 4 times
    In Long Is. Light., the claimant and the State disagreed as to which should bear the expense of removing certain light fixtures from a parkway.

    On several occasions, the question of what effect repudiation of a contract, with respect to a performance not yet due, may have upon the accrual date for filing purposes has arisen in the Court of Claims. (See City of New York v State of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 659; City of New York v State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 661.) A refusal to pay before there is a present duty of performance, is by definition an anticipatory breach. (10 N.Y. Jur, Contracts, ยง 394, p 399.)

  3. Berlin & Jones, Inc. v. State

    85 Misc. 2d 970 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1976)   Cited 7 times

    Admittedly, under Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v State of New York ( 50 A.D.2d 356, 357, 358) it was held that a claimant" may prospectively file an effective notice of intention to file a claim under the provisions of section 10 CTC of the Court of Claims Act and thereby preserve its status as a claimant in an action against the State in the event a workmen's compensation recipient fails to timely commence such an action" and, that "a prospective claimant may file to preserve its rights before it becomes endowed with the official status of a claimant." (See, also, Matter of Johnson v State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 136, 138, 139; City of New York v State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 661, 663.) However, I cannot believe the appellate courts would apply the prospective filing rule to preserve an application of the day of injury theory in contribution or partial indemnity claims.