Director v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Director v. State

250 A.D.2d 725, 672 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 725 (Director v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Director v. State, 250 A.D.2d 725, 672 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered February 3, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim, in the court’s discretion, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors (see, Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254). No one factor is considered determinative (see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979). In this case, the Court of Claims determined that the claimants did not present a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a timely claim and to adequately demonstrate the merits thereof (see, Matter of Barella v State of New York, 232 AD2d 633; Savino v State of New York, supra; Cabral v State of New York, 149 AD2d 453). Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered February 3, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim, in the court’s discretion, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors (see, Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254). No one factor is considered determinative (see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979). In this case, the Court of Claims determined that the claimants did not present a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a timely claim and to adequately demonstrate the merits thereof (see, Matter of Barella v State of New York, 232 AD2d 633; Savino v State of New York, supra; Cabral v State of New York, 149 AD2d 453). Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 725, 672 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/director-v-state-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack