Legal Opinion

Molinaro v. State

New York Court of Claims

Decided June 30, 1960No. Claim No. 35430PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFred A. Young, J.

This is a motion for an order dismissing the ¡above-entitled -claim upon the ground that the court does mot have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this .action since the claim -was not filed within 9.0 days -after the ¿accrual of said action as .provided under subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act.

There is mo question that a claimant faced with acts -of continuing trespassing must file within 90 days of the accrual. (La Rose v. State of New York, 199 Misc. 317.)

Also it is well settled that the 90-day period established by subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Court of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Paduano v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  2. Allen v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1955
  3. La Rose v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1950
  4. Rizzo v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1951
  5. Kosciuszko v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1959

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sweet v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1982
  2. Jaycox v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1962
  3. Bantelman v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API