Summary
In Lufker, while finding that "the claimant's notice of intention failed to describe the location of the incident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11" the Court nonetheless reversed the denial by the Court of Claims of a motion to have the notice of intention treated as a claim because the "report of incident' completed by the State University of New York campus police shortly after the incident occurred provided the State of New York with timely actual notice of the exact location of the incident" (at 565-566).
Summary of this case from Peart v. StateOpinion
May 27, 1997
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the claimant's motion is granted.
The Court of Claims improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant's motion to have the notice of intention to file a claim treated as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(8). While it is true that the claimant's notice of intention failed to describe the location of the incident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11, the "report of incident" completed by the State University of New York campus police shortly after the incident occurred provided the State of New York with timely actual notice of the exact location of the incident (see, Holly v State of New York, 191 A.D.2d 678). Further, there is no indication that the State would suffer substantial prejudice if the notice of intention to file a claim were to be treated as a claim (see, Holly v. State of New York, supra.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.