From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 1995
221 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 16, 1995

Appeal from the Court of Claims, New York County (Gerard Weisberg, J.).


In her motion to file a late notice of claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (5), which permits a claimant under a legal disability to file a claim within two years after the disability is removed, plaintiff asserted that the notice of claim was not made within the statutory 90 day period because she was under a mental disability from the time her causes of action accrued until the present. After an evidentiary hearing held to determine plaintiff's mental status during the 90 day period, the Court of Claims found that even if plaintiff was mentally disabled upon her discharge, by the summer of 1990 she was no longer disabled within the meaning of section 10 (5), since by that time she had been able to meet with an attorney, assist in the preparation of the claim and had gotten a job. Inasmuch as section 10 (5) is strictly applied ( see, McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am., 55 N.Y.2d 543), and even post-traumatic stress disorder is insufficient to support its application (supra), we agree that claimant's failure to present her claim by filing it with the clerk of the court and serving the Attorney-General (Court of Claims Act § 11 [a]) by August 1992 resulted in failure to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over defendant, which may not be waived ( Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 721). Relief pursuant to section 10 (5) was therefore correctly denied.

The court also properly denied relief pursuant to section 10 (6), which permits late filing of a claim in the court's discretion, since the plaintiff's causes of action were time barred ( see, Berger v State of New York, 171 A.D.2d 713, 716; Muscat v State of New York, 103 Misc.2d 589) and the claims sounding in medical malpractice and negligence were also not legally viable ( Prusack v State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729).

The unpublished Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on November 2, 1995 is hereby recalled and vacated.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Doe v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 1995
221 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Doe v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:JANE DOE, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 57

Citing Cases

Williams v. State of New York

Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim but only if the application is made within…

Ibekweh v. State

The motion to vacate claimant's default was properly denied because claimant failed to allege any wrongdoing…