Case Name: Cooper-Snell Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-07-06
Citations: 193 A.D. 192
Docket Number: Claims Nos. 1549A, 1688A
Parties: Cooper-Snell Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 193
Pages: 192–196

Head Matter:
Cooper-Snell Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
(Claims Nos. 1549A, 1688A.)
Fourth Department,
July 6, 1920.
Court of Claims—act conferring jurisdiction to determine claim against State — provision as to filing claim construed — prior filing of claim effective to confer jurisdiction.
Although chapter 603 of the Laws of 1918, which conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claims of the Cooper-Snell Company for damages sustained in connection with highway construction, provided that no award should be made or judgment rendered “ unless such claim shall be filed with the Court of Claims within six months from the time this act takes effect,” it was unnecessary to refile claims under said enabling act,. if, in fact, they had already been filed before the act took effect, as such prior filing was a substantial compliance with the statute.
Hence, the Court of Claims should not refuse to open a default of the claimant merely upon the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the question, because the claims were not refiled.
Clabic and Dn Angelis, JJ., dissent, with opinion.
Appeal by the claimant, Cooper-Snell Company, from certain orders made by the Court of Claims and entered in ’ the office of the clerk of said court on the 3d day of December, 1919, denying claimant’s motions to vacate and set aside certain orders made in said court, dismissing on jurisdictional grounds two claims against the State. (See 192 App. Div. 935.)
John C. Wait [Howard G. Wilson of counsel], for the appellant.
Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General [J. L. Cheney, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J.:
I think it was not necessary to refile these claims to comply with the ptovisions of the act of 1918 (Laws of 1918, chap. G03). The claims were on file when the act took effect and have remained on file with the Court of Claims. This, as it seems to me, is a substantial compliance with the act and accords with the reasoning of Kellogg, P. J., in Rogers v. State of New York (184 App. Div. 340).
The Court of Claims refused to open the default upon the sole ground that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the same, because the claims were not refiled within six months after the act of 1918 took effect. The prevailing opinion of that court concedes that a case was made out to open the default.
It seems to me that the learned court put too strict a construction upon the act. (See 109 Misc. Rep. 96.)
While the act requires these claims to be filed with the Court of Claims within six months from the time the act takes effect, there is nothing in the act which provides for refiling, if, in fact, the claim was already on file at the time the act took effect, and no good reason is suggested, as it seems to me, why such refiling should be required.
The order denying the application to open the default and for an order setting aside and vacating the dismissal should be reversed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements on this appeal, and the application should be granted.
All concur, except De Angelis and Clark, JJ., who dissent • in an opinion by Clark, J.