Legal Opinion
Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation Unit
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 26, 2010PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*516The motion court correctly denied claimant’s motion for a default judgment as contrary to Court of Claims Act § 12 (1). Defendant, apparently receiving its first notice of this pro se matter on this appeal, also correctly asserts the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Claims (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997]; Ranz v Sposato, 77 AD2d 408, 409-410 [1980]; McConnell v Williams S. S. Co., Inc., 239 App Div 393, 395 [1933], affd without op 265 NY 594 [1934]), since the underlying claim, inter alia, does not comply with the pleading requirements of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fry v. Village of TarrytownNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Lepkowski v. State of NYNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Kolnacki v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- McConnell v. Williams Steamship Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- McConnell v. Williams Steamship Company, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- 247-59 West, LLC v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 2010