From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pyle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

July 14, 1992

Appeal from the Court of Claims, McMahon, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the award of consequential damages for reasons stated by the Court of Claims (McMahon, J.). We add only that we are unable to review defendant's contention that the court erred in granting, in part, claimants' motion for an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701 because the motion papers are not a part of the stipulated record on this appeal. In any event, defendant's contention that the 1987 amendment to EDPL 701 (see, L 1987, ch 771) should not have been applied retroactively lacks merit because the right to the additional allowance did not accrue until the award was made. The date of the award was subsequent to the effective date of the amendment (see, Hakes v. State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 1035; First Bank Trust Co. v. State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 1034; Thomas v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 945; Lee-Hi Fuel Corp. v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 494; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 A.D.2d 705).


Summaries of

Pyle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Pyle v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROGER E. PYLE et al., Respondents, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim…

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

Date published: Jul 14, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
585 N.Y.S.2d 645

Citing Cases

Taylor v. State of New York

We disagree. Pursuant to EDPL 701, it is well settled that a claimant's right to an additional allowance does…