Ruiz v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. State

220 A.D.2d 734, 633 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 734 (Ruiz 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

Ruiz v. State, 220 A.D.2d 734, 633 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals (1) from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered April 8, 1994, which denied her motion for permission to file a late claim and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the claim, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered June 16, 1994, as, upon granting renewal and reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 8, 1994, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered June 16, 1994, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered June 16, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Court of Claims properly found that the claimant should not be granted leave to file a late claim. While it is true the failure to tender a valid excuse will not in and of itself mandate the denial of a timely motion for leave to file a late claim (see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979), it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to a claimant who had known about the claimed deficiency in service for over two years, but failed to offer any excuse for not making the motion (see, Innis v State of New York, 92 AD2d 606, affd 60 NY2d 654).

We have examined the claimant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, 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, the claimant appeals (1) from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered April 8, 1994, which denied her motion for permission to file a late claim and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the claim, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered June 16, 1994, as, upon granting renewal and reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 8, 1994, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered June 16, 1994, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered June 16, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Court of Claims properly found that the claimant should not be granted leave to file a late claim. While it is true the failure to tender a valid excuse will not in and of itself mandate the denial of a timely motion for leave to file a late claim (see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979), it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to a claimant who had known about the claimed deficiency in service for over two years, but failed to offer any excuse for not making the motion (see, Innis v State of New York, 92 AD2d 606, affd 60 NY2d 654).

We have examined the claimant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 734, 633 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack