KAUFMAN v. STATE (2005)

In a claim to recover damages for injury to property, the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated October 1, 2003, which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the claim as untimely.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion of the respondent, State of New York, to dismiss the claim as untimely, as the claim was commenced more than 90 days after the date when the alleged damages were reasonably ascertainable (see Potanovic v. County of Rockland, 267 A.D.2d 291, 700 N.Y.S.2d 195;  Flushing Natl. Bank v. State of New York, 210 A.D.2d 294, 621 N.Y.S.2d 83;  White Plains Parking Auth. v. State of New York, 180 A.D.2d 729, 580 N.Y.S.2d 68).   Contrary to the claimants' contention, the limitations period was not extended by the continuing wrong doctrine (see Manhattanville Coll. v. James John Romeo Consulting Engr., 5 A.D.3d 637, 774 N.Y.S.2d 542;  Mandel v. Estate of Tiffany, 263 A.D.2d 827, 693 N.Y.S.2d 759;  Selkirk v. State of New York, 249 A.D.2d 818, 671 N.Y.S.2d 824;  Greco v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 A.D.2d 674, 637 N.Y.S.2d 191;  Matter of Waterside Assoc. v. New York State Depart. of Envtl. Conservation, 127 A.D.2d 663, 511 N.Y.S.2d 890, affd. 72 N.Y.2d 1009, 534 N.Y.S.2d 915, 531 N.E.2d 636).

In light of this determination, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions.