Beckford v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1999
• Citation: 695 N.Y.S.2d 706
• Parties: In the Matter of Andre BECKFORD, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 706

695 N.Y.S.2d 706

In the Matter of Andre BECKFORD, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 27, 1999.

Kenneth L. Falk, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Archibald F. Robertson, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) for leave to file a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated April 29, 1998, which denied his application.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits the late filing of a claim, in the court's discretion, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors (see, Savino v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 254, 604 N.Y.S.2d 970; Weaver v. State of New York, 112 A.D.2d 416, 417, 492 N.Y.S.2d 75; see also, Almedia v. State of New York, 70 A.D.2d 712, 713, 416 N.Y.S.2d 443). No single factor is deemed controlling, as the presence or absence of any one factor is not determinative (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v. New York State Empls. Retirement Sys., 55 N.Y.2d 979, 981, 449 N.Y.S.2d 185, 434 N.E.2d 254; Holly v. State of New York, 191 A.D.2d 678, 679, 595 N.Y.S.2d 562; Soble v. State of New York, 189 A.D.2d 970, 592 N.Y.S.2d 285).

In this case, the Court of Claims determined that after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances before it, the first five factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10(6) all weigh against granting the relief sought by the claimant. Upon review of the record herein, we are satisfied that the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the application (see, Ledet v. State of New York, 207 A.D.2d 965, 616 N.Y.S.2d 831; Soble v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Gavigan v. State of New York, 176 A.D.2d 1117, 1118, 575 N.Y.S.2d 217).

RITTER, J.P., THOMPSON, JOY, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.