Polak v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polak v. State

235 A.D.2d 481, 652 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 1997·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated January 17, 1996, which denied their application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court considered all of the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimants’ application for leave to file a late claim (see, Matter of Bonaventure v New York State [482] Thruway Auth., 114 AD2d 674, affd 67 NY2d 811). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, 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 claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated January 17, 1996, which denied their application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court considered all of the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimants’ application for leave to file a late claim (see, Matter of Bonaventure v New York State [482] Thruway Auth., 114 AD2d 674, affd 67 NY2d 811). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Polak v. State, 235 A.D.2d 481, 652 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 481 (Polak v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related