Prusack v. State

• Decision Date: 18 February 1986
• Citation: 498 N.Y.S.2d 455,117 A.D.2d 729
• Parties: , 30 Ed. Law Rep. 802 Howard PRUSACK, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 455

498 N.Y.S.2d 455

117 A.D.2d 729, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 802

Howard PRUSACK, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 18, 1986.

Goldstein & Garbar, P.C., Bellmore (Gary Goldstein, of counsel; Binnie A. Davidow, on brief), for appellants.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (William J. Kogan and Richard J. Dorsey, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and BROWN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Orlando, J.), dated July 25, 1984, which denied their motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).

Order affirmed, with costs.

Claimants, graduates of various medical schools in Mexico who, in order to qualify for internship and residency positions with American hospitals, were required to undergo a one year program of study in the United States, were accepted into an academic program offered by the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The acceptance letters, dated in February 1983, indicated that the tuition for the 1983-1984 term would be $6,000, and claimants apparently complied with the terms of the letter requiring them to sign and return it to the university within two weeks, together with a deposit, in order to secure their places in the program. Claimants were thereafter notified by letters dated June 17, 1983, that the State Legislature had approved an immediate tuition increase to $9,000 per year. The increased tuition was paid by each of the claimants. However, the university was informed that at least two of the students enrolled in the program believed they should be reimbursed for the additional $3,000. In August 1983 claimant Prusack contacted a law firm regarding the possibility of legal redress, and he was informed of the six-month period within which it would be necessary for him to file a claim against the State (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Claimants decided to refrain from instituting a lawsuit at that time. In February 1984 claimants made the instant application for permission to file a late claim for breach of contract, which application was denied.

The Court of Claims' determination that the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim and therefore would not be prejudiced by claimants' failure to timely file is not challenged, nor is the court's finding that claimants have no other remedy refuted (see, Court of Claims Act § 10).

Where, as here, a majority of the facts enumerated in the statute are in favor of claimants, permission to file a late claim is typically granted (see, Lachica v. State of New York, 101 A.D.2d 881, 476 N.Y.S.2d 182; Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v. New York State Employees' Retirement System, Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System, 89 A.D.2d 992, 454 N.Y.S.2d 327). However, it would be futile to permit the filing of a legally deficient claim which would be subject to immediate dismissal, even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request (see, Rosenhack v. State of New York, 112 Misc.2d 967, 969, 447 N.Y.S.2d 856; Matter of Santana v. New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc.2d 1, 10, 399 N.Y.S.2d 395). The Court of Claims properly determined that claimants did not present a claim which "appears to be...