New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DiCICCO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-049, Claim No. 114564, Motion No. M-74680


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C.
By: William Hamel, Esq.No Appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 8, 2008
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves for an order dismissing the claim of Frank DiCicco, which arises from a September 6, 2007 automobile accident on the eastbound Long Island Expressway near Utopia Parkway in Queens. Defendant argues that the claim fails to comply with §11.b of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”) in that it fails to adequately describe the manner in which the accident occurred and that it fails to adequately describe the condition alleged as a cause of the accident. Section 11.b of the Act requires that a claim state five specific items: “the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed.” The purpose of §11.b “is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts . . .” Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 626, 622 NYS2d 177, 179 (Ct Cl 1994).

In arguing that Mr. DiCicco does not adequately describe the manner of his accident or the condition that caused it, defendant is presumably arguing that he has failed to adequately describe the nature of his claim.

As to how the accident occurred, the claim states that DiCicco’s “motor vehicle was caused to be in a collision with other motor vehicles.” Claim, ¶3. The claim specifically references an annexed police report, which contains a police officer’s summary of claimant’s version of the accident as well as the other driver’s version, together with a diagram and other information. According to the report, claimant (“Vehicle 2") maintained that an unknown third vehicle impacted him from behind, causing him to strike “Vehicle 1.” As to the condition which allegedly caused the accident, the claim largely consists of general allegations of the State’s negligence, but contained therein is the specific allegation that the State “failed to post warning signs of the limited sight distance and speed, thus leaving the aforementioned area without any properly maintained traffic control devices and/or signs to control the flow of traffic . . .” Id.

In view of the foregoing, I find that claimant has adequately stated the nature of the claim for the purposes of §11.b of the Act. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-74680 be denied.

September 8, 2008
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.