DECISION ORDER
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 permit a claimant to file a late claim ( see, Savino v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 254). No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative ( see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v. New York State Employees' Policemen's Firemen's Retirement System, 55 N.Y.2d 979; Holly v. State of New York, 191 A.D.2d 678, 679; Carvalho v. State of New York, 176 A.D.2d 317).
The Court of Claims, after weighing all of the evidence, determined that the claimants failed to demonstrate a legally-acceptable excuse for their failure to file a timely claim and also failed to adequately demonstrate the merits of their claim ( see, Barella v. State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 633; Savino v. State of New York, supra; Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453). Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimants' application.