Morales v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. State

292 A.D.2d 455, 738 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 455 (Morales 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

Morales v. State, 292 A.D.2d 455, 738 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of [456]*456Claims (Mignano, J.), dated April 12, 2001, which denied her application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the application is granted.

We disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Claims that the claimant failed to establish a potentially meritorious claim against the State because she did not submit an expert’s affidavit. Furthermore, although the claimant’s proffered excuse for failure to file a timely claim was not compelling, considering that the delay was minimal, and the State’s concession that it was not prejudiced by the delay, the application should have been granted (see, Marcus v State of New York, 172 AD2d 724). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of [456]*456Claims (Mignano, J.), dated April 12, 2001, which denied her application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the application is granted.

We disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Claims that the claimant failed to establish a potentially meritorious claim against the State because she did not submit an expert’s affidavit. Furthermore, although the claimant’s proffered excuse for failure to file a timely claim was not compelling, considering that the delay was minimal, and the State’s concession that it was not prejudiced by the delay, the application should have been granted (see, Marcus v State of New York, 172 AD2d 724). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 455, 738 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-state-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack