Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

195 Misc. 380

Farnham v. State

New York Court of Claims

Decided June 27, 1949

New York Court of Claims · decided 1949-06-27

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-06-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1977

5 state decisions

201949195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ryan, J.

¶1This is an application for permission to file a claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act (L. 1939, ch. 860). We believe the moving affidavits spell out a mistake of fact on the part of claimant’s attorney. Perhaps claimant’s attorney could have been more diligent in making his inquiries and might have sooner learned that the State of New York and not the City of Dunkirk constructed and maintained the highway at the scene of the accident. However, under all the circumstances it appears to us that the excuse is reasonable.

¶2The statement that the resident engineer of the State had knowledge of the accident within two or three weeks after it occurred and that the State remedied the condition complained of is not controverted. It appears, therefore, that the State has not been prejudiced by the delay.

¶3As his proposed claim claimant resubmits the pleading heretofore filed, verified February 25,1949, and filed March 16,1949. *381TMs pleading states a cause of action. We see no need of again printing the claim or refiling twelve copies thereof. , One copy should be refiled, however, in order that a new number may be assigned to it and the clerk’s records completed and one copy - should be served on the Attorney-General, within ten days from entry of the order granting permission to file. Submit order.

/195/misc/380 · .json · Public domain