Tinyes v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tinyes v. State

82 A.D.3d 1109, 918 N.Y.2d 898

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published

Opinion

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s petition for leave to file a late claim. Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (see Edens v State of New York, 259 AD2d 729, 730 [1999]; Holly v State of New York, 191 AD2d 678 [1993]), the Court of Claims properly determined that the claimant failed to come forth with a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a timely claim and failed to demonstrate that his claim was potentially meritorious. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Belen, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s petition for leave to file a late claim. Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (see Edens v State of New York, 259 AD2d 729, 730 [1999]; Holly v State of New York, 191 AD2d 678 [1993]), the Court of Claims properly determined that the claimant failed to come forth with a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a timely claim and failed to demonstrate that his claim was potentially meritorious. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Belen, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Tinyes v. State, 82 A.D.3d 1109, 918 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 1109 (Tinyes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related