Williams v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. State

133 A.D.3d 1357, 19 N.Y.S.3d 458

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 1357 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 133 A.D.3d 1357, 19 N.Y.S.3d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson, J.), entered July 18, 2014. The order denied the motion of claimant seeking leave to file a late claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims. We write only to note that we reject claimant’s contention that merit alone should have warranted granting his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). “Nothing in the statute makes the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys. Policemen’s & Firemen’s Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979, 981 [1982]) and, in any event, we agree with the court that claimant did not “adequately set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that his claim was meritorious” (Olsen v State of New York, 45 AD3d 824, 824 [2007]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson, J.), entered July 18, 2014. The order denied the motion of claimant seeking leave to file a late claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims. We write only to note that we reject claimant’s contention that merit alone should have warranted granting his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). “Nothing in the statute makes the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys. Policemen’s & Firemen’s Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979, 981 [1982]) and, in any event, we agree with the court that claimant did not “adequately set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that his claim was meritorious” (Olsen v State of New York, 45 AD3d 824, 824 [2007]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 1357, 19 N.Y.S.3d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack