From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goudie v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2002
291 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-04968

Argued January 11, 2002.

February 14, 2002.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated May 10, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), and denied her cross motion, inter alia, for leave to file a late claim.

Larkin, Axelrod, Trachte Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James Alexander Burke of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Peter H. Schiff and Michael S. Buskus of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, as the claimant did not timely file the claim in accordance with Court of Claims Act § 10(3), and properly denied that branch of the claimant's cross motion which was for leave to file a late claim as the claimant did not seek such leave within the time provided in Court of Claims Act § 10(6). The defendant pleaded in its answer the jurisdictional defense set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11(c) with sufficient particularity, and the record does not support the claimant's contention that the defendant subsequently waived the jurisdictional defense. "Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and should not be lightly presumed" (Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 968). The defendant's conduct in connection with the preliminary conference order was not sufficient to constitute an intentional relinquishment of the defense. In any event, a failure in the subject matter jurisdiction of the court cannot be waived (see, Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 721, 723; Dreger v. New York State Thruway Auth., 81 N.Y.2d 721), except as provided in Court of Claims Act § 11(c).

The claimant's remaining contentions are without merit.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goudie v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2002
291 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Goudie v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH M. GOUDIE, appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, respondent

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 539

Citing Cases

Williams v. State of New York

Accordingly, the Court of Claims erred in concluding that the State waived the defense of exhaustion of…

Katz v. State

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Court of Claims properly dismissed…