Legal Opinion
Miranda v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 16, 2014PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStein, J.
We affirm. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), a notice of claim must be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Spaight v State of New York, 91 AD3d 995, 995 [2012]; Femminella v State of New York, 71 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2010]). Here, claimant’s substituted manner of service — priority mail— did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements (see Femminella v State of New York, 71 AD3d at 1320; Filozof v State of New York, 45 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2007]; Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766, 767 [1995]; Newman v State…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kolnacki v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- Hodge v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Caci v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Filozof v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Spaight v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Young v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Canales v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 2015
- Cappetta v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
- Trimble v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016