Borawski v. State, 2013-05927
| Decision Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2013-05927 |
| Citation | 128 A.D.3d 628,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03795,8 N.Y.S.3d 399 |
| Parties | Dorota BORAWSKI, etc., appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 628
8 N.Y.S.3d 399
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03795
Dorota BORAWSKI, etc., appellant
v.
STATE of New York, respondent.
2013-05927
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 6, 2015.
Law Offices of Dean T. Cho, LLP, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Valerie Figueredo ), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion
In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and defamation, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Soto, J.), dated March 18, 2013, which denied her motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant is an obstetrician and gynecologist formerly employed by the respondent at SUNY Downstate Medical Center. The claimant moved, pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), for leave to file a late claim alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination, promissory estoppel, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Claims denied the claimant's motion.
“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” (Tucholski v. State of New York, 122 A.D.3d 612, 612, 996 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable; whether the State had notice of essential facts constituting the claim; whether
the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kaloyeros v. State
-
Decker v. State
...State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy (see Court of Claims Act § 10[6] ; Borawski v. State of New York, 128 A.D.3d 628, 628–629, 8 N.Y.S.3d 399 ). "No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative" ( Qing Liu ......
-
Kaloyeros v. State
...to ignorance of the law which is not an acceptable excuse for delay in timely serving and filing a claim (Borawski v State of New York, 128 A.D.3d 628, 629 [2d Dept 2015]). With respect to claimants' assertion that settlement efforts were underway between May 2019 and November 2019, no proo......
-
Kaloyeros v. State
... ... law which is not an acceptable excuse for delay in timely ... serving and filing a claim ( Borawski v State of New ... York , 128 A.D.3d 628, 629 [2d Dept 2015]). With respect ... to claimants' assertion that settlement efforts were ... ...