Legal Opinion
New York Central Railroad v. State
New York Court of Claims
Decided November 24, 1944No. Motion No. 1039PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGreenberg, J.
Upon motion made pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act for leave to file a claim after the expiration of the time prescribed for filing, the Attorney-General has opposed the application upon the ground that the proposed claim fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and therefore, upon the authority of Chergotis v. State of New York (172 Misc. 272, affd. 259 App. Div. 369), Siegel v. State of New York (262 App. Div, 388) and Toyos v. State of New York (181 Misc. 761), the motion should be denied.
The proposed claim and affidavit allege…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Booth v. . R., W. O.T.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Dung v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Belmar Contracting Co. v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Siegel v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Chergotis v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Long Island Railroad v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1945
- Tully v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1949
- Shalman v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1956