Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Maurantonio v. State

Maurantonio v. State

266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11310
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 8, 1999
StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 290 (Maurantonio 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
Maurantonio v. State, 266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to serve a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of [291]*291Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated August 6, 1998, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant’s application for leave to serve a late claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; Matter of Gallagher v State of New York, 236 AD2d 400; Matter of Soble v State of New York, 189 AD2d 970; Matter of Donaldson v State of New York, 167 AD2d 805, 806). The claimant failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for her eight-month delay in filing a claim against the defendant (see, Mattice v Town of Wilton, 160 AD2d 1195; Erca v State of New York, 51 AD2d 611, affd 42 NY2d 854; cf., Weaver v State of New York, 112 AD2d 416). In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter. Thus, the defendant would be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense (see, Matter of Sverdlin v City of New York, 229 AD2d 544; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 AD2d 922). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Erca v. State
366 N.E.2d 291 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Erca v. State
51 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Weaver v. State
112 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Mattice v. Town of Wilton
160 A.D.2d 1195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Donaldson v. State
167 A.D.2d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Wertenberger v. Village of Briarcliff Manor
175 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Soble v. State
189 A.D.2d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Sverdlin v. City of New York
229 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Gallagher v. State
236 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurantonio-v-state-nyappdiv-1999.