From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1992
184 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 16, 1992

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Donald Corbett, Jr., J.).


We agree that any claim that claimant may have had against the State of New York was not timely made, the claim having been made more than 90 days after what can be viewed, in the light most favorable to claimant, as the last-occurring State action (see, Brinkley v. City Univ., 92 A.D.2d 805). We decline to reach those arguments based on facts dehors the record (see, Knolls Coop. Section No. 2 v. Evans Dev. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 690), and those presenting new theories for the first time on appeal (Unitron Graphics v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 75 A.D.2d 783, 784), and would, in any event, find them meritless.

We have reviewed the claimant's other arguments, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1992
184 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Hoffman v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALICE J. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim No…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 828

Citing Cases

Sanchez v. City of N.Y.

In considering whether a jury's damages award is inconsistent with the evidence, we are, again, guided by…

Moctezuma v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Although the jury initially rendered an inconsistent verdict on liability, the trial court properly directed…