Waters of Saratoga Springs, Inc. v. State
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sarfati v. Antigua and Barbuda (District Court, District of Columbia 2013)
- Koch v. Christie's International PLC (2d Cir. 2012)
- Lessord v. General Electric Company (District Court, W.D. New York 2002)
- Carol Overall v. Estate of L.H.P. Klotz (2d Cir. 1995)
- Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T & N PLC (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Mills v. City Univ. of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Richard A. Hutchens Cc v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Lynch v. Carlozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Inter-Power of New York, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Bhagalia v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Ghandour v. Shearson Lehman Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Hodge v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Anonymous v. Anonymous (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- Burpee v. Burpee (New York Supreme Court 1991)
- Hoosac Valley Farmers Exchange, Inc. v. AG Assets, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Lancaster Development, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Artale v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Claimant’s claim and amended claim, filed more than two years after accrual of the alleged causes of action, were *779 properly dismissed (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [4]). Similarly, claimant’s application to deem its notice of intention to file a claim as a notice of claim was correctly denied, there being no cause of action stated upon which the requested relief can be granted. Insofar as the notice of intention asserted arbitrary and capricious conduct in excess of the State’s authority, the alleged wrongdoing (requiring warning labels on drinking water) was a sovereign activity as to which the State has not waived immunity. Insofar as the notice of intention alleged breach of contract, the agreement expressly contemplated the possibility that warning labels would be required.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.