circumstances underlying claim in New York

2025"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2025The factors are "whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the 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 failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]). "'No one factor is deemed controlling, nor

2022"No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative" ( Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y. , 262 AD2d at 474 ; see Tucholski v State of New York , 122 AD3d 612, 612 ; Morris v Doe , 104 AD3d at 921 ).

2022"No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative" ( Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y. , 262 AD2d 473, 474 ; see Casey v State of New York , 161 AD3d 720 , 721; Tucholski v State of New York , 122 AD3d 612 ; Morris v Doe , 104 AD3d 921 ).

2023"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2022"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2025"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2025"In determining whether to permit the filing of a claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the 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 failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]; see He

2025Footnote 2: Such enumerated factors include: "whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the 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 failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]; see Tucholski v

2025Footnote 2: Such enumerated factors include: "whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the 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 failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]; see Tucholski v

2025"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2022"In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Cour

2025Here, the claimant failed to establish that he had a reasonable excuse for his delay or that the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and an opportunity to investigate the extent of its potential liability ( see Winter v State of New York , 187 AD3d 825, 826 ; Hyatt v State of New York , 180 AD3d at 767).

2024Here, the claimant failed to establish that the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and an opportunity to investigate the extent of its potential liability ( see Winter v State of New York , 187 AD3d 825, 826 ; Hyatt v State of New York , 180 AD3d at 767).

2004Rather, it is well-settled that the factors a court must consider in determining a properly framed Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) motion are whether (1) the delay in filing the claim was excusable, (2) the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, (3) the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, (4) the claim appears to be meritorious, (5) the failure to file or serve upon the Attorney General a timely claim or to serve upon the Attorney General a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State, and (6) there is any

1998This court has broad discretion in deciding a motion to permit the late filing of a claim (Ledet v State of New York, 207 AD2d 965 ), and the statutory factors are not exhaustive or one factor controlling (Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117 ).

2020Section 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act sets forth the following enumerated factors: (1) whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; (3) whether the delay in filing the claim was reasonably excusable; (4) whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (5) whether the claim appears to be meritorious; and (6) whether the claimant ha

2009In determining whether to grant such an application, the court must consider, inter alia, the following factors: “whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the 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 failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any o

2011Here, the factual portion of the misdemeanor information alleges that defendant violated an order of protection issued on a particular date and recites the circumstances underlying that violation, but it does not allege that defendant was served with the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection (cf. Inserra, 4 NY3d at 32-33 ; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010]).

2011Here, the factual portion of the misdemeanor information alleges that defendant violated an order of protection issued on a particular date and recites the circumstances underlying that violation, but it does not allege that defendant was served with the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection (cf. Inserra, 4 NY3d at 32 - 33; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 ; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1492, 1493 , lv denied 15 NY3d 774 ).

2011Here, the factual portion of the misdemeanor information alleges that defendant violated an order of protection issued on a particular date and recites the circumstances underlying that violation, but it does not allege that defendant was served with the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection (cf. Inserra, 4 NY3d at 32-33 ; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010]).

2011Here, the factual portion of the misdemeanor information alleges that defendant violated an order of protection issued on a particular date and recites the circumstances underlying that violation, but it does not allege that defendant was served with the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection (cf. Inserra, 4 NY3d at 32 - 33; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 ; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1492, 1493 , lv denied 15 NY3d 774 ).

2010The State did not have notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, even though it “owned and maintained the facility” where claimant was allegedly imprisoned (Turner, 40 AD2d at 923 ), and the fact that claimant’s medical records may be at a state facility does not mean that the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying her claim (see Conroy v State of New York, 192 Misc 2d 71, 72 [2002]).