enumerated factors in New York

2025"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 AD3d 612, 612 ; see Dominguez v State of New York , 218 AD3d 440, 441 ).

2025"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 AD3d 612, 612; see Dominguez v State of New York , 218 AD3d 440, 441).

2026In the absence of express findings of fact and of a detailed discussion of the enumerated factors, meaningful appellate review is precluded and a remittal for further fact finding may be required ( see Gape v. Gape , 110 AD2d 621 , 487 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; see also Kluge v. Kluge , 159 AD2d 968 , 552 N.Y.S.2d 771 ).

2026In the absence of express findings of fact and of a detailed discussion of the enumerated factors, meaningful appellate review is precluded and a remittal for further fact finding may be required ( see Gape v. Gape , 110 AD2d 621 , 487 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; see also Kluge v. Kluge , 159 AD2d 968 , 552 N.Y.S.2d 771 ).

2022Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors set forth therein, to allow a claimant to file a late claim ( see Morris v Doe , 104 AD3d 921 ; Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y. , 262 AD2d 473, 474 ).

2014Court 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 (see Morris v Doe, 104 AD3d 921, 921 [2013]; Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 473, 474 [1999]).

2011“The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]).

2011Maintenance is determined “based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]).

2025Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the State's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the claim. "'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'" ( Shah v State of New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872, quoting Tucholski v State of New York , 122 AD3d 612, 612 ).

2025"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 AD3d 612, 612; see Dominguez v State of New York , 218 AD3d 440, 441).

2022Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors set forth therein, to allow a claimant to file a late claim ( see Morris v Doe , 104 AD3d 921 ; Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y. , 262 AD2d 473, 474 ).

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

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

2011“The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]).

2009The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Schwalb v Schwalb, 50 AD3d 1206, 1210 [2008]; Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d 783, 784-785 [2007]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1008 [2005]; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 341 [1991]) based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d 718, 723 [2008]).

2011“The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]).

2011A primary goal of maintenance is to provide a financial base while the recipient gains the ability to become self-sufficient (see Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1009 [2005]).

2025"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" ( Dominguez v State of New York , 218 AD3d 440, 441 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Buyes v State of New York , 208 AD3d 745, 746 ).

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

2024Unquestionably, the undersigned "has the ability to 'terminate the period of probation sooner in accordance with the [C]riminal [P]rocedure [L]aw' if the court is satisfied" that all three prongs of CPL 410.90 (3) (a) have been met ( People v Teri W. , 31 NY3d 124, 129 [2018], quoting Penal Law § 65.00 [3] [internal brackets omitted]).

2024Unquestionably, the undersigned "has the ability to 'terminate the period of probation sooner in accordance with the [C]riminal [P]rocedure [L]aw' if the court is satisfied" that all three prongs of CPL 410.90 (3) (a) have been met ( People v Teri W. , 31 NY3d 124, 129 [2018], quoting Penal Law § 65.00 [3] [internal brackets omitted]).

2013While the Family Court did not consider the enumerated factors, the record is sufficient to permit this Court to consider and evaluate those factors (see Matter of Frank MM. v Lorain NN., 103 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 22 AD3d at 856 ; Matter of Coates v Levy, 235 AD2d 592 [1997]).

2013While the Family Court did not consider the enumerated factors, the record is sufficient to permit this Court to consider and evaluate those factors (see Matter of Frank MM. v Lorain NN., 103 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 22 AD3d at 856 ; Matter of Coates v Levy, 235 AD2d 592 [1997]).

2013Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 605, 612 [1988]).

2013Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 605, 612 [1988]).

2011“The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]).

2011A primary goal of maintenance is to provide a financial base while the recipient gains the ability to become self-sufficient (see Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1009 [2005]).

2011“The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]).

2011Maintenance is determined “based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse” (Ndulo v Ndulo, 66 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2009]; see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]).

2011A primary goal of maintenance is to provide a financial base while the recipient gains the ability to become self-sufficient (see Lorenz v Lorenz, 63 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2009]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Dowd v Dowd, 58 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2009]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1009 [2005]).

2009The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Schwalb v Schwalb, 50 AD3d 1206, 1210 [2008]; Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d 783, 784-785 [2007]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1008 [2005]; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 341 [1991]) based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d 718, 723 [2008]).

2009The amount and duration of maintenance is an issue generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Schwalb v Schwalb, 50 AD3d 1206, 1210 [2008]; Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d 783, 784-785 [2007]; Carman v Carman, 22 AD3d 1004, 1008 [2005]; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 341 [1991]) based upon the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Quinn v Quinn, 61 AD3d 1067, 1071 [2009]; Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d 718, 723 [2008]).

2009In determining the amount and duration of maintenance, the court must consider the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), as well as the predivorce standard of living of the recipient spouse (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51 [1995]; Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d 718, 723 [2008]).

2008Rather, the statute states that “[i]n deciding whether a child witness is vulnerable, the court shall make findings of fact which reflect the causal relationship between the existence of any one or more of the factors set forth in subdivision nine [now subd. (10)] of this section or other relevant factors which the court finds are established and the determination that the child witness is vulnerable” (CPL 65.20 [12] [emphasis added]; see People v Guce, 164 AD2d 946, 948 [1990], Iv denied 76 NY2d 986 [1990] [court based finding on five of the enumerated factors]; People v Pierce, 266 AD2d 721

2008Rather, the statute states that "[i]n deciding whether a child witness is vulnerable, the court shall make findings of fact which reflect the causal relationship between the existence of any one or more of the factors set forth in subdivision nine [now subd. (10)] of this section or other relevant factors which the court finds are established and the determination that the child witness is vulnerable" (CPL 65.20 [12] [emphasis added]; see People v Guce , 164 AD2d 946, 948 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 986 [1990] [court based finding on five of the enumerated factors]; People v Pierce , 266 AD2d 72

2022The enumerated factors are whether: the delay in filing was excusable, the State of New York had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the 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 AD3d 628, 628-629 ).

2020The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable, the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the 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 AD3d 628, 628-629 ).

2014The court also properly imputed an annual income to the husband of $900,000 when it computed the maintenance award (see Lennox, 109 AD3d at 703-704 ; see also Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 4-6 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

2013A court need not rely upon the party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

2014The court also properly imputed an annual income to the husband of $900,000 when it computed the maintenance award (see Lennox, 109 AD3d at 703-704 ; see also Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 4-6 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

2013A court need not rely upon the party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

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

2020"The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing [the claim] was excusable, the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy" ( Hyatt v State of New York , 180 AD3d 764, 766 ).

2024Co. , 74 NY2d 201, 213 ["the presence or absence of one or more of [the enumerated factors] is not dispositive since it is the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self-sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis control."]) [FN6] While respondent demonstrates some indicia of a nontraditional family relationship, and this court is amenable to an evolving concept of family, respondent cannot demonstrate that he utilized the subject apartment as his primary residence for two years prior to the tenant of record's permanent vacatur.

1997Co., supra, 74 NY2d, at 213 .) In the instant case, the decedent, a producer of cultural events, first met respondent through a mutual friend (one of the witnesses, in fact) in 1970.

2020Although the Court of Claims is required to consider the six factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10(6), no single factor is deemed controlling ( see Matter of Barnes v State of New York , 161 AD3d 1325 ; Matter of Thomas v State of New York , 272 AD2d 650 ; Matter of E.K. v State of New York , 235 AD2d 540 ), and the presence or absence of any one factor is not dispositive ( see Morris v Doe , 104 AD3d 921 ; Broncati v State of New York , 288 AD2d 172 ).

2019"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 Broncati v State of New York , 288 AD2d 172, 173 ).