Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1942–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lichtenstein v. Stategreen2 sentences2026While Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) provides a court with "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Carey v State of New York , 207 AD3d 1194, 1195-1196 [4th Dept 2022]), the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking that relief unless it is "made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR" ( Carey , 207 AD3d at 1196 ; see Shah v State of New York , 17 2023Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) gives a court "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Stirnweiss v State of New York , 186 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2d Dept 2020]). | 3 | 3 |
Stirnweiss v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2023Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) gives a court "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Stirnweiss v State of New York , 186 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2d Dept 2020]). 2022Nevertheless, Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) gives a court "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Stirnweiss v State of New York , 186 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2d Dept 2020]). | 2 | 2 |
Campos v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2023The application for such relief, however, must be made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR ( see §§ 10 [6]; 12 [2]; Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872 [2d Dept 2019], appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 982 [2020], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 35 NY3d 1107 [2020], rearg denied 36 NY3d 1047 [2021]; Campos v State of New York , 139 AD3d 1276, 1278 [3d Dept 2016]). 2022The motion, however, must be made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR ( see Court of Claims Act §§ 10 [6]; 12 [2]; Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872 [2d Dept 2019], appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 982 [2020], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 35 NY3d 1107 [2020], rearg denied 36 NY3d 1047 [2021]; Campos v State of New York , 139 AD3d 1276, 1278 [3d Dept 2016]; see generally Alston v State of New York , 97 NY2d 159, 163 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]; see also Williams v State of New York, 235 AD2d 776 [1997] lv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997] ["Court of Claims § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim but only if the application is made within the applicable Statute of Limitations period"]; Marine Midland Bank, N.A., v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871, 872 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993] ["claimant is permitted to file a late claim only if the underlying cause of action is not time barred"]). 1997Claimant’s cause of action was clearly time barred when he made his motion to file a late claim (see, Doe v State of New York, 221 AD2d 218 ; Marine Midland Bank v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871 , Iv denied 82 NY2d 661 ). | 1 | 2 |
Carey v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026While Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) provides a court with "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Carey v State of New York , 207 AD3d 1194, 1195-1196 [4th Dept 2022]), the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking that relief unless it is "made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR" ( Carey , 207 AD3d at 1196 ; see Shah v State of New York , 17 2026While Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) provides a court with "discretionary power to allow the late filing of a claim upon consideration of a number of factors, including the merits of the case" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 911, 912 [1999]; see Carey v State of New York , 207 AD3d 1194, 1195-1196 [4th Dept 2022]), the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking that relief unless it is "made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR" ( Carey , 207 AD3d at 1196 ; see Shah v State of New York , 17 | 1 | 1 |
Alston v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2022The motion, however, must be made before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations under article two of the CPLR ( see Court of Claims Act §§ 10 [6]; 12 [2]; Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872 [2d Dept 2019], appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 982 [2020], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 35 NY3d 1107 [2020], rearg denied 36 NY3d 1047 [2021]; Campos v State of New York , 139 AD3d 1276, 1278 [3d Dept 2016]; see generally Alston v State of New York , 97 NY2d 159, 163 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Crum & Foster Insurance v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]; see also Williams v State of New York, 235 AD2d 776 [1997] lv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997] ["Court of Claims § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim but only if the application is made within the applicable Statute of Limitations period"]; Marine Midland Bank, N.A., v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871, 872 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993] ["claimant is permitted to file a late claim only if the underlying cause of action is not time barred"]). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Co. v State of New York, 25 AD3d 643, 644 [2006]; see also Williams v State of New York, 235 AD2d 776 [1997] lv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997] ["Court of Claims § 10 (6) permits the late filing of a claim but only if the application is made within the applicable Statute of Limitations period"]; Marine Midland Bank, N.A., v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871, 872 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993] ["claimant is permitted to file a late claim only if the underlying cause of action is not time barred"]). | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2003Notably, a court is without power to authorize the late filing of a claim or to order that a late filed claim be deemed timely nunc pro tunc where the statute of lim itations has expired (see Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954-955 [1982]; Perry v City of New York, 238 AD2d 326, 327 [1997]; see also Serkil, L.L.C. v City of Troy, 259 AD2d 920, 922 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 811 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Percoco v. Gerbergreen1 sentence2003Notably, a court is without power to authorize the late filing of a claim or to order that a late filed claim be deemed timely nunc pro tunc where the statute of lim itations has expired (see Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954-955 [1982]; Perry v City of New York, 238 AD2d 326, 327 [1997]; see also Serkil, L.L.C. v City of Troy, 259 AD2d 920, 922 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 811 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Pierson v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2003Notably, a court is without power to authorize the late filing of a claim or to order that a late filed claim be deemed timely nunc pro tunc where the statute of lim itations has expired (see Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950, 954-955 [1982]; Perry v City of New York, 238 AD2d 326, 327 [1997]; see also Serkil, L.L.C. v City of Troy, 259 AD2d 920, 922 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 811 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Healy v. Village of Cooperstowngreen1 sentence1999Court 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 AD2d 254 ; Weaver v State of New York, 112 AD2d 416, 417 ; see also, Almedia v State of New York, 70 AD2d 712, 713 ). | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Stategreen1 sentence1988(Iazzetta v State of New York, claim No. 64057, filed Mar. 29, 1984, Blinder, J., affd 115 AD2d 518 , lv denied 67 NY2d 605 ; see also, Epstein v State of New York, 124 AD2d 544 , lv denied 69 NY2d 605 .) Thus, we find no bar to this court’s examination of the sufficiency of claimant’s alleged cause of action in relation to the legal defenses raised by the cross motion. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1988While we must accept that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time, the court does not appreciate or condone the practice of playing "possum” (Jones v State of New York, 51 NY2d 943, 945 [dissenting opn, Meyer, J.]) until the Statute of Limitations has expired and claimant can no longer avail herself of the relief afforded by a motion to permit the late filing of a claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saving v. State
green
2 sentences1999Court 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 AD2d 254 ; Weaver v State of New York, 112 AD2d 416, 417 ; see also, Almedia v State of New York, 70 AD2d 712, 713 ). 1998Court 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 AD2d 254 ). | 4 | 1997–1999 |
Gavigan v. State
green
2 sentences1998This 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 ). 1995The court is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to permit the late filing of a claim (see, e.g., Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117 ). | 2 | 1995–1998 |
Ledet v. State
green
2 sentences1998This 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 ). 1997This 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, nor is one factor controlling (Scarver v State of New York, 233 AD2d 858 ). | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Weaver v. State
green
1 sentence1999Court 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 AD2d 254 ; Weaver v State of New York, 112 AD2d 416, 417 ; see also, Almedia v State of New York, 70 AD2d 712, 713 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Doe v. State of New York
green
1 sentence1997Claimant’s cause of action was clearly time barred when he made his motion to file a late claim (see, Doe v State of New York, 221 AD2d 218 ; Marine Midland Bank v State of New York, 195 AD2d 871 , Iv denied 82 NY2d 661 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Scarver v. State
green
1 sentence1997This 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, nor is one factor controlling (Scarver v State of New York, 233 AD2d 858 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Farrell v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1994(See, Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698 [2d Dept 1993].) Accordingly, the defendant is estopped from arguing that it did not receive proper notice of this claim. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rosenhack v. State
green
1 sentence1993One of the factors to be considered is whether the claim has the appearance of merit, as it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion (see, Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 ; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Prusack v. State
green
1 sentence1993One of the factors to be considered is whether the claim has the appearance of merit, as it would be futile to permit a defective claim to be filed even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the claimant’s motion (see, Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 ; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Santana v. New York State Thruway Authority
green
1 sentence1991(Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 .) The court having reviewed the other factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), finds the majority of them to favor the claimant: clearly defendant had notice of the essential facts within 90 days of the occurrence, had an opportunity to investigate what happened and therefore will suffer no prejudice through the allowance of the late filing of this claim. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
De Angelas v. P.A. Tropical Products, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1988(Iazzetta v State of New York, claim No. 64057, filed Mar. 29, 1984, Blinder, J., affd 115 AD2d 518 , lv denied 67 NY2d 605 ; see also, Epstein v State of New York, 124 AD2d 544 , lv denied 69 NY2d 605 .) Thus, we find no bar to this court’s examination of the sufficiency of claimant’s alleged cause of action in relation to the legal defenses raised by the cross motion. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Kozak v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986Furthermore, the excuses proffered by claimants for their failure to timely make a claim against the State are unpersuasive, as the belief that the making of such a claim could jeopardize their future careers does not constitute a reasonable excuse (see, Kozak v State of New York, 35 AD2d 909 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Gatti v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986Under these circumstances, and noting the lack of prejudice to the State, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late filing of this claim (see, Gatti v State of New York, 90 AD2d 840 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Vastola v. Maer
green
1 sentence1981As Presiding Justice Rabin stated in Vastola v Maer ( 48 AD2d 561, 564 ): “[t]he purpose of the statute [of limitations] is in no way served by a rule which would place the plaintiff in a position whereby the timeliness of his claim would depend upon the speed with which a court decides a motion.” Accordingly, litigants may not be penalized for the time which a court devotes to the decision of a matter before it. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Turner v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979Under prior law (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 5, superseded by L 1976, ch 280, § 2), the court could permit the late filing of a claim only when the claimant involved demonstrated that he had a reasonable excuse for not filing within 90 days of the accrual of the claim, that the State had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim prior to the expiration of the 90 days and that the state had not been substantially prejudiced by the delay in filing (McGaughy v State of New York, 55 AD2d 823 ), and a failure to satisfy any one of these requirements precluded the granting o | 1 | 1979–1979 |
McGaughy v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979Under prior law (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 5, superseded by L 1976, ch 280, § 2), the court could permit the late filing of a claim only when the claimant involved demonstrated that he had a reasonable excuse for not filing within 90 days of the accrual of the claim, that the State had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim prior to the expiration of the 90 days and that the state had not been substantially prejudiced by the delay in filing (McGaughy v State of New York, 55 AD2d 823 ), and a failure to satisfy any one of these requirements precluded the granting o | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Claim of Ward v. Merritt neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Lopez v. State neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| McCann v. State neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Firenze v. State neutral | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Good v. State neutral | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Every v. County of Ulster neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Schroeder v. State green | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.