late claim in New York

2025The Sufficiency of the Proposed Claim Under Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "Facts stated in a motion for leave to file a late claim ... are deemed true for purpose of [the] motion, when not denied or contradicted in opposing affidavits" ( Sessa v State of New York , 88 Misc 2d 454, 458 [Ct Cl 1976], affd 63 AD2d 334 [3d Dept 1978], affd 47 NY2d 976 [1979] ; see Schweickert v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1026 [4th Dept 1978]; Cole v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1023 [4th Dept 1978]).

2025The Sufficiency of the Proposed Claim Under Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "Facts stated in a motion for leave to file a late claim ... are deemed true for purpose of [the] motion, when not denied or contradicted in opposing affidavits" ( Sessa v State of New York , 88 Misc 2d 454, 458 [Ct Cl 1976], affd 63 AD2d 334 [3d Dept 1978], affd 47 NY2d 976 [1979] ; see Schweickert v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1026 [4th Dept 1978]; Cole v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1023 [4th Dept 1978]).

2025The Sufficiency of the Proposed Claim Under Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "Facts stated in a motion for leave to file a late claim ... are deemed true for purpose of [the] motion, when not denied or contradicted in opposing affidavits" ( Sessa v State of New York , 88 Misc 2d 454, 458 [Ct Cl 1976], affd 63 AD2d 334 [3d Dept 1978], affd 47 NY2d 976 [1979] ; see Schweickert v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1026 [4th Dept 1978]; Cole v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1023 [4th Dept 1978]).

2025The Sufficiency of the Proposed Claim Under Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "Facts stated in a motion for leave to file a late claim ... are deemed true for purpose of [the] motion, when not denied or contradicted in opposing affidavits" ( Sessa v State of New York , 88 Misc 2d 454, 458 [Ct Cl 1976], affd 63 AD2d 334 [3d Dept 1978], affd 47 NY2d 976 [1979] ; see Schweickert v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1026 [4th Dept 1978]; Cole v State of New York , 64 AD2d 1023 [4th Dept 1978]).

2025It is "well settled that in deciding whether to grant an application for leave to file a late claim, the presence or absence of any one of these factors is not controlling" ( Weaver v State of New York , 112 AD2d 416, 417 [2d Dept 1985]).

2025It is "well settled that in deciding whether to grant an application for leave to file a late claim, the presence or absence of any one of these factors is not controlling" ( Weaver v State of New York , 112 AD2d 416, 417 [2d Dept 1985]).

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).

2016Memorandum: We reject claimant’s contention that the Court of Claims erred in denying his motion seeking permission to file a late claim against defendant based upon its alleged breach of contract. “ ‘A determination by the Court of Claims to grant or deny a motion for permission to file a late . . . claim lies within the broad discretion of that court and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion’ ” (Ledet v State of New York, 207 AD2d 965, 965-966 [1994]).

2016Memorandum: We reject claimant’s contention that the Court of Claims erred in denying his motion seeking permission to file a late claim against defendant based upon its alleged breach of contract. “ ‘A determination by the Court of Claims to grant or deny a motion for permission to file a late . . . claim lies within the broad discretion of that court and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion’ ” (Ledet v State of New York, 207 AD2d 965, 965-966 [1994]).

2025It is well-established that the failure to satisfy the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim ( see Hargrove, 138 AD3d at 777; Kolnacki v State of New York , 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]; Czynski v State of New York , 53 AD3d 881, 882-883 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]).

2025It is well-established that the failure to satisfy the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim ( see Hargrove, 138 AD3d at 777; Kolnacki v State of New York , 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]; Czynski v State of New York , 53 AD3d 881, 882-883 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]).

2025Although no one factor is determinative, this Court has consistently declined to disturb the denial of an application to serve a late claim where the proposed claim is of questionable merit ( see Ortiz v State of New York , 78 AD3d 1314, 1314-1315 [3d Dept 2010], affd 17 NY3d 389 [2011]; Langner v State of New York , 65 AD3d at 783 ).

2024While no single factor is determinative, it would be futile to grant a late claim application where the proposed claim is of questionable merit or would be subject to dismissal "even if the other factors in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) supported the granting of the [application for late claim relief]" ( Ortiz v State of New York , 78 AD3d 1314, 1314 [3d Dept 2010]).

2025It is well-established that the failure to satisfy the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim ( see Hargrove, 138 AD3d at 777; Kolnacki v State of New York , 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]; Czynski v State of New York , 53 AD3d 881, 882-883 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]).

2023Since the claim is jurisdictionally defective for nonconformity with the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), this Court need not reach claimant's remaining contentions as to the factors in determining whether to permit the filing of a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) ( see Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d 201, 209 [2003]).

2025Consideration of the Six Factors Under Court of Claims Act § 10(6) Whether the Delay in Filing was Excusable The appellate courts have held that barring very unusual circumstances, it has been held that ignorance of the law, lack of access to a law library, and lack of legal assistance are not viable excuses for filing a late claim ( Matter of Sandlin v State of New York , 294 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 2002] lv. dismissed , 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; Matter of Thomas v State of New York , 272 AD2d 650, 651 [3d Dept 2000]; Matter of P.A. v State of New York , 277 AD2d 671, 672 [3d [*5]Dept 2000]).

2025There is a heavier burden on a party moving for permission to file a late claim than on a [claimant] who has complied with the provisions of the Court of Claims Act ( see id. at *11-*12; see also Nyberg v State of New York , 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]).

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 ).

2005The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s application for leave to file a late claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; Anderson v City Univ. of N.Y. at Queens Coll., 8 AD3d 413 [2004]; Quilliam v State of New York, 282 AD2d 590 [2001]; Edens v State of New York, 259 AD2d 729 [1999]; Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 473 [1999]; Broncati v State of New York, 288 AD2d 172 [2001]; Matter of Gallagher v State of New York, 236 AD2d 400 [1997]).

2025Consideration of the Six Factors Under Court of Claims Act § 10(6) Whether the Delay in Filing was Excusable The appellate courts have held that barring very unusual circumstances, it has been held that ignorance of the law, lack of access to a law library, and lack of legal assistance are not viable excuses for filing a late claim ( Matter of Sandlin v State of New York , 294 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 2002] lv. dismissed , 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; Matter of Thomas v State of New York , 272 AD2d 650, 651 [3d Dept 2000]; Matter of P.A. v State of New York , 277 AD2d 671, 672 [3d [*5]Dept 2000]).

2025Consideration of the Six Factors Under Court of Claims Act § 10(6) Whether the Delay in Filing was Excusable The appellate courts have held that barring very unusual circumstances, it has been held that ignorance of the law, lack of access to a law library, and lack of legal assistance are not viable excuses for filing a late claim ( Matter of Sandlin v State of New York , 294 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 2002] lv. dismissed , 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; Matter of Thomas v State of New York , 272 AD2d 650, 651 [3d Dept 2000]; Matter of P.A. v State of New York , 277 AD2d 671, 672 [3d Dept 2000]).

2025There is a heavier burden on a party moving for permission to file a late claim than on a [claimant] who has complied with the provisions of the Court of Claims Act ( see id. at *11-*12; see also Nyberg v State of New York , 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]).

2025There is a heavier burden on a party moving for permission to file a late claim than on a [*7][claimant] who has complied with the provisions of the Court of Claims Act ( see id. at *11-*12; see also Nyberg v State of New York , 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]).

2025"However, if a claim is legally deficient, leave to file a late claim should be denied even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request" ( id. ; see Shah v State of [*2]New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872-873).

2025"However, if a claim is legally deficient, leave to file a late claim should be denied even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request" ( id. ; see Shah v State of [*2]New York , 178 AD3d 871 , 872-873).

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).

2013The Second Department reversed in both cases, holding that “[o]nce the applicable limitations period expired . . . , the court was without authority either to entertain a subsequent motion to extend the time to file a late claim, or, sua sponte, to grant such relief’ (Roberts, 41 AD3d at 826 ; see also Crum & Foster, 25 AD3d at 644 [“a motion for leave to serve a late claim may not be entertained after the statute of limitations for a like claim against a citizen of the state has expired” (internal quotation marks omitted)]).

2010Co. 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"]).

2024There is a heavier burden on a party moving for permission to file a late claim than on a claimant who has complied with the provisions of the Court of Claims Act ( see id. at 11-12 ; see also Nyberg v State of New York , 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]).

2024Unlike a party who has timely filed a claim, a party seeking to file a late claim has the greater burden of demonstrating that the proposed claim appears to be meritorious ( see Nyberg v State of New York , 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]; Matter of Santana v New York State Thruwav Auth. , 92 Misc 2d 1 [Ct Cl 1977]).

2025Accordingly, as "the applicable limitations period [had] expired in this case, the court was without authority either to entertain a subsequent motion to extend the time to file a late claim, or . . . grant such relief" ( Roberts v City Univ. of N.Y. , 41 AD3d 825, 826 [2d Dept 2007]; see Campos v State of New York , 139 AD3d 1276, 1278 [3d Dept 2016]).

2024Defendant here does not argue that it suffered any prejudice as a result of claimant serving the claim three days beyond the court-imposed deadline. [FN2] However, notwithstanding the general availability of relief from court-imposed deadlines, the Court cannot extend the time to file and serve a late claim beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to a like claim against a citizen of the state under the provisions of CPLR article 2 ( see CCA § 10 [6]; Canales , 51 Misc 3d at 651 , citing Miles v City Univ. of NY , 126 AD3d 609 [1st Dept 2015], Roberts v City Univ. of NY ,