Legal Opinion
Frederick v. State
New York Court of Claims
Decided January 23, 2009No. Claim No. 115636PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Christopher J. McCarthy, J.
For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim based upon claimant’s failure to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) and § 11 is granted. Claimant’s cross motion for permission to serve and file a claim late pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) is denied.
The claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on August 5, 2008, alleges that, in the year 2000, claimant was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 31k years of incarceration with no postrelease supervision (PRS).…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Broughton v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. SparberNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Brown v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Martinez v. City of SchenectadyNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Garner v. CORRECTIONAL SERVS.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Mickens v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 2009
- Murray v. United Parcel Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Scott v. CrosswayDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2022