From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Critton v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 2004
12 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4597

November 9, 2004.

Judgment, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Ferris D. Lebous, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2003, which dismissed the claim after a trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


The causes of action for assault and battery, abuse of process and false arrest/false imprisonment were time-barred; the court was without jurisdiction to grant claimant's untimely application to treat his notice of intention to sue as his claim, for his failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 10 (8) ( see Byrne v. State of New York, 104 AD2d 782, lv denied 64 NY2d 607). The court's refusal to toll the statute of limitations due to the death of claimant's attorney was a proper exercise of discretion under the circumstances.

Regarding the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, claimant was a probationary employee, terminable at will, and he failed to establish wrongful means or malicious intent on the part of his employer ( cf. Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 194).

We have considered claimant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Critton v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 2004
12 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Critton v. State

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL CRITTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 9, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
783 N.Y.S.2d 804

Citing Cases

D.G. v. State

A motion to treat a notice of intention as a claim must be made "before an action asserting a like claim…

D.G. v. State

A motion to treat a notice of intention as a claim must be made "before an action asserting a like claim…