From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Erca v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 15, 1976
51 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

January 15, 1976


Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered February 7, 1975, which granted claimants' motion for permission to file a late amended claim against the State Thruway Authority pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10 CTC of the Court of Claims Act. The claimants, injured on August 9, 1974 in an automobile accident on the Tappan Zee Bridge, filed a claim against the State of New York on November 7, 1974. Subsequently, claimants discovered that the Tappan Zee Bridge was part of the New York State Thruway system and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State Thruway Authority. Accordingly, the claimants initiated a motion for permission to file a late amended claim on the Thruway Authority. This motion was granted and the instant appeal ensued. The original claim, though timely, was clearly ineffectual against the Thruway Authority (Cantor v State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 872). Claimants, however, offered two reasons for their failure to serve a timely claim upon the Thruway Authority; the disability of claimant Carl Erca, who was hospitalized for 76 days as a result of the accident, and inadvertence in believing that the Tappan Zee Bridge was a State roadway. The Court of Claims properly rejected the argument of inadvertence as constituting a reasonable excuse (De Marco v State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 786; Crane v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 1001), but found that Carl Erca's serious injuries constituted a reasonable excuse permitting a late filing. The difficulty with this conclusion is that clearly it was not such injuries which brought about the filing of a late claim but the fact that the earlier claim was filed against the wrong party, the State and not the Thruway Authority. The error in filing the claim against the wrong party was, as noted, not excusable and being the reason that the claim was not timely filed, the excuse of untimeliness based on medical justification cannot stand (see Crane v State of New York, supra). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and the claim dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, P.J. Greenblott, Koreman, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Erca v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 15, 1976
51 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Erca v. State

Case Details

Full title:CARL ERCA et al., Respondents, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Yarusso v. State

Shortly thereafter, claimant received correspondence from the Port Authority, dated August 14, 2012, that…

Wynkoop v. State

Claimant does not offer any legally acceptable excuse for the delay in filing the claim. It is well settled…