Legal Opinion

Miranda v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 16, 2014Published

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

  1. Kolnacki v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Hodge v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  3. Caci v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  4. Filozof v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API