Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant's motion to file a late claim. Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the court properly determined that the claimant's failure to serve a timely claim upon the Attorney General due to ignorance of the law was not excusable ( see Anderson v City Univ. of N.Y. at Queens Coll., 8 AD3d 413; Quilliam v State of New York, 282 AD2d 590; Matter of E.K. v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540). Furthermore, the claimant failed to adequately set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that his claim was meritorious ( see Anderson v City Univ. of N.Y. at Queens Coll., 8 AD3d 413; Qing Liu v City Univ. of NY, 262 AD2d 473; Witko v State of New York, 212 AD2d 889; Matter of Garguiolo v New York State Thruway Auth., 145 AD2d 915, 916). In addition, alternative remedies, including workers' compensation benefits, are available to the claimant ( see Kaufman v State of New York, 18 AD3d 504; Witko v State of New York, 212 AD2d 889; Matter of Powell v State of New York, 187 AD2d 848, 849; Matter of Garguiolo v New York State Thruway Auth., 145 AD2d 915).