Morris v Doe

Mar 27, 2013
2012-06787
Versions:

Pamela J. Gabiger, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated November 29, 2011, which denied his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

”Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim (see Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 473 [1999]). No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor dispositive” (Broncati v State of New York, 288 AD2d 172, 173 [2001]; see Jomarron v State of New York, 23 AD3d 527, 528 [2005]).

Here, the claimant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a timely claim, and also failed to adequately demonstrate the merits of his claim (see Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y., 262 AD2d at 474; Matter of Barella v State of New York, 232 AD2d 633 [1996]; Cabral v State of New York, 149 AD2d 453, 453-454 [1989]). Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant‘s motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.