Cabral v. State
| Citation | 149 A.D.2d 453,539 N.Y.S.2d 792 |
| Parties | Diana CABRAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1989 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Finkelstein, Kaplan, Levine, Gittelsohn and Tetenbaum, Newburgh (Robert J. Camera, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley and Leslie B. Neustadt, of
counsel, Michael Rabiet, on the brief), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an application pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated October 21, 1987, which denied the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Approximately six months after slipping on ice accumulated on a walkway serving a State-owned building, the claimant sought leave to file a late notice of claim alleging, inter alia, that the State was negligent in failing to install gutters and leaders on the building in order to prevent runoff water from dripping onto the walkway. The only excuse offered in support of the contention that the delay was excusable was a conclusory assertion by the claimant's counsel, unsupported by a physician's affidavit, that the claimant's alleged hospitalization at some undisclosed time delayed her from contacting an attorney, and that the claimant had no knowledge of the 90-day statutory filing requirement. The Court of Claims denied the claimant's application, determining, inter alia, that the claimant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in support of her application. We agree.
Where, as here, the claimant failed to establish that her delay in seeking leave to file a late notice of claim was excusable, and where the claim itself is of questionable merit (cf., Prusack v. State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729, 730, 498 N.Y.S.2d 455), the Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to grant the claimant's application.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goines v. State
... ... 49 A.D.2d 965, 965-966 [3d Dept 1975]; Cole v State of ... New York , 64 A.D.2d 1023, 1024 [4th Dept 1978]; ... McGaughy v State of New York , 55 A.D.2d 823, 823 ... [4th Dept 1976]; Wolf v State of New York , 140 ... A.D.2d 692, 692 [2d Dept 1988]; cf. Cabral v State of New ... York , 149 A.D.2d 453, 453 [2d Dept 1989] [affirming ... denial of late claim relief where only support offered to ... explain delay was a "conclusory assertion by the ... claimant's counsel" regarding the claimant's ... alleged hospitalization]). Further, "the excuse need ... ...
-
Buyes v. State
...213 A.D.2d 378, 379, 623 N.Y.S.2d 319 ; Musto v. State of New York, 156 A.D.2d 962, 963, 549 N.Y.S.2d 256 ; Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 453, 539 N.Y.S.2d 792 ), and also failed to adequately demonstrate the merits of his claim (see Hyatt v. State of New York, 180 A.D.3d 764......
-
Soble v. State
... ... view that the claim itself is of questionable merit. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Court of Claims abused its discretion in denying claimants' application (see, Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 453-454, 539 N.Y.S.2d 792; Prusack v. State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729, 729-730, 498 N.Y.S.2d 455). ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs ... WEISS, P.J., and ... ...
-
Morris v. Doe
...262 A.D.2d at 474, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329;Matter of Barella v. State of N.Y., 232 A.D.2d 633, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1014;Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 453–454, 539 N.Y.S.2d 792). Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant's motion for leave......