Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

QING LIU v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Jun 14, 1999
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Court of Claims Act ยง 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.