You are here: / / Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described

Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims should have granted claimant’s request to file a late claim:

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … .

Here, the Court of Claims improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the claimants’ motion which was for leave to file a late claim on behalf of the claimant … . It is undisputed that the State received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claimant[‘s] …  accident, and there is no indication that the State would suffer substantial prejudice if the claimants were permitted to file a late claim … . Furthermore, notwithstanding the existence of a factual issue as to which governmental entity bears responsibility for maintenance of the roadway and guardrail where the accident occurred, the claimants’ submissions were sufficient, at this point, to demonstrate that there appears to be merit to their claim within the meaning of Court of Claims Act § 10(6) … . Tucholski v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07494, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

You might also like
New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable
ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “HOLDER (OF THE NOTE)” REQUIREMENTS OF THE UCC WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT).
Decision Whether to Submit a Lesser Included Offense to the Jury Is for the Attorney, Not the Defendant, to Make—Failure to Grant the Attorney’s Request (Because the Defendant Objected) Reversible Error
A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defect in Basketball Court Was Concealed Precluded Summary Judgment Based upon Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk
RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Non-Party Attorneys Properly Held in Civil Contempt for Starting a Class Action... Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert