Mudd v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mudd v. State

255 A.D.2d 386, 679 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), dated June 30, 1997, which denied their application for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims denied the appellants’ application to file a late claim seeking to recover damages, inter alia, for malicious prosecution (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Because the appellants, among other things, failed to proffer an adequate excuse for their delay or demonstrate that their proposed claims had merit, (see, Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500; McGuire v Epstein, 167 AD2d 453; Molinoff v Sassower, 99 AD2d 528; Pagliarulo v Pagliarulo, 30 AD2d 840), the Court of Claims properly exercised its discretion in denying their application (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6];.Ma#er of E. K. v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, 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), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), dated June 30, 1997, which denied their application for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims denied the appellants’ application to file a late claim seeking to recover damages, inter alia, for malicious prosecution (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Because the appellants, among other things, failed to proffer an adequate excuse for their delay or demonstrate that their proposed claims had merit, (see, Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500; McGuire v Epstein, 167 AD2d 453; Molinoff v Sassower, 99 AD2d 528; Pagliarulo v Pagliarulo, 30 AD2d 840), the Court of Claims properly exercised its discretion in denying their application (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6];.Ma#er of E. K. v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Mudd v. State, 255 A.D.2d 386, 679 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 386 (Mudd v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related