delay in filing 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

2016The nonexhaustive list of pertinent factors include “whether [respondent] obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether [petitioner] offered a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim and whether that delay would substantially prejudice [respondent], with no one factor being dispositive” (Kirtley v Albany County Airport Auth., 67 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2009]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Reinemann v Village of Altamont, 112 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2013]; Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307

2013We affirm. “[T]he decision to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is discretionary and involves an inquiry as to whether [the] respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether a reasonable excuse was proffered for the delay in filing a claim and whether granting a late filing would prejudice [the] respondents” (Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; accord Matter of Euson v County of Tioga, N.Y., 94 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2012]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249

2013We affirm. “[T]he decision to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is discretionary and involves an inquiry as to whether [the] respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether a reasonable excuse was proffered for the delay in filing a claim and whether granting a late filing would prejudice [the] respondents” (Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; accord Matter of Euson v County of Tioga, N.Y., 94 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2012]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249

2013We affirm. “[T]he decision to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is discretionary and involves an inquiry as to whether [the] respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether a reasonable excuse was proffered for the delay in filing a claim and whether granting a late filing would prejudice [the] respondents” (Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; accord Matter of Euson v County of Tioga, N.Y., 94 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2012]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249

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

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).

2013We affirm. “[T]he decision to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is discretionary and involves an inquiry as to whether [the] respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether a reasonable excuse was proffered for the delay in filing a claim and whether granting a late filing would prejudice [the] respondents” (Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; accord Matter of Euson v County of Tioga, N.Y., 94 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2012]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249

2013We affirm. “[T]he decision to permit the late filing of a notice of claim is discretionary and involves an inquiry as to whether [the] respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether a reasonable excuse was proffered for the delay in filing a claim and whether granting a late filing would prejudice [the] respondents” (Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; accord Matter of Euson v County of Tioga, N.Y., 94 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2012]; Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249

2010"To be sure, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable explanation for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim" (Matter of Sandlin v State of New York, 294 AD2d 723 , 724 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; see also Matter of Lynch v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1002 [2003]; Matter of Thomas v State of New York, 272 AD2d 650, 651 [2000]).

2006Here, neither claimant’s professed ignorance of the law nor his confinement in a correctional facility provided an acceptable excuse for the delay in filing his claim with respect to this procedure (see Matter of Lynch v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2003]).

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

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

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 ).

2018To the extent that claimant contends that the delay is excusable because he filed a notice of claim in September 2015, that filing did not specify the time when his claim arose ( see Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]), and, therefore, the deficient notice of intention did not extend the time to file a claim ( see Sommer v State of New York , 131 AD3d 757, 758 [2015]; Langner v State of New York , 65 AD3d 780, 781-782 [2009]; Ferrugia v State of New York , 237 AD2d 858 , 859 n [1997]; see also Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]).

2018To the extent that claimant contends that the delay is excusable because he filed a notice of claim in September 2015, that filing did not specify the time when his claim arose ( see Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]), and, therefore, the deficient notice of intention did not extend the time to file a claim ( see Sommer v State of New York , 131 AD3d 757, 758 [2015]; Langner v State of New York , 65 AD3d 780, 781-782 [2009]; Ferrugia v State of New York , 237 AD2d 858 , 859 n [1997]; see also Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]).

2016The nonexhaustive list of pertinent factors include “whether [respondent] obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether [petitioner] offered a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim and whether that delay would substantially prejudice [respondent], with no one factor being dispositive” (Kirtley v Albany County Airport Auth., 67 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2009]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Reinemann v Village of Altamont, 112 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2013]; Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307

2016The nonexhaustive list of pertinent factors include “whether [respondent] obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, whether [petitioner] offered a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a claim and whether that delay would substantially prejudice [respondent], with no one factor being dispositive” (Kirtley v Albany County Airport Auth., 67 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2009]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Reinemann v Village of Altamont, 112 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2013]; Matter of Crocco v Town of New Scotland, 307

2012No single factor is dispositive and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, Supreme Court’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed” (Matter of Schwindt v County of Essex, 60 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Conger v Ogdensburg City School Dist., 87 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2011]; Matter of Hayes v Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego Bd. of Coop.

2010Matter of Magee v State of New York, 54 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2008]; Musto v State of New York, 156 AD2d 962 [1989]), and even if, arguendo, the State was not prejudiced by claimant’s delay, that factor is not determinative (see e.g.

2010"To be sure, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable explanation for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim" (Matter of Sandlin v State of New York, 294 AD2d 723 , 724 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; see also Matter of Lynch v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1002 [2003]; Matter of Thomas v State of New York, 272 AD2d 650, 651 [2000]).

2009No single factor is dispositive (see Matter of Leeds v Port Washington Union Free School Dist., 55 AD3d 734, 734-735 [2008]) and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, Supreme Court’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed (see Matter of Hinton v New Paltz Cent.