From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reinmuth v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1978
65 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

October 19, 1978


Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered December 3, 1976, which granted claimant's motion to file a late claim. Claimant's claim alleges that she was injured in an automobile accident on April 27, 1976 when the automobile she was operating struck a utility pole which defendant allegedly permitted to continue in place at the lip of the roadway endangering the use of the roadway by claimant and others. Defendant originally moved to dismiss the claim as untimely filed and for other relief. The court accepted claimant's answering affidavit as a motion for permission to file a late claim, which motion the court granted. The issue of whether or not the claimant was properly permitted to late file her claim is the sole issue raised on this appeal. Claimant, acting pro se, served a copy of her claim upon the Attorney-General on the 90th day following accrual of the claim, and on that day mailed a copy of the claim to the Clerk of the Court of Claims which was not received until 92 days after accrual of the claim. Unquestionably, the claimant's claim was not timely filed (Perry v State of New York, 64 A.D.2d 799; Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 3, § 11). The Court of Claims, however, held that since September 1, 1976, subdivision 6 of section 10 CTC of the Court of Claims Act is available to all claimants who move thereunder before their claims have become timebarred. Here, the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, and will suffer no prejudice if relief is granted. The facts alleged by claimant, coupled with the seriousness of her injuries and her inability to find an attorney to represent her, constituted a reasonable excuse. In addition, the claim appears to be meritorious. The Court of Claims decision granting claimant permission to file a late claim was properly granted (Barbera v State of New York, 64 A.D.2d 786; Perry v State of New York, supra; cf. Matter of Beary v City of Rye, 44 N.Y.2d 398; Sessa v State of New York, 63 A.D.2d 334). Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reinmuth v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1978
65 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Reinmuth v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOAN REINMUTH, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 1978

Citations

65 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Matter of Bonaventure v. N.Y. State Thruway

Examination of the record demonstrates that the court considered each of the elements in section 10 (6).…

Matter of Snyder v. City of Utica

In this case it appears prima facie that petitioner has a meritorious case and, without fault on his part,…