Opinion
2013-03-27
Thomas MORRIS, appellant, v. John DOE, et al., respondents.
Pamela J. Gabiger, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.
Pamela J. Gabiger, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated November 29, 2011, which denied his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors, to allow a *909claimant to file a late claim ( see Qing Liu v. City Univ. of N.Y., 262 A.D.2d 473, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329). No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor dispositive” ( Broncati v. State of New York, 288 A.D.2d 172, 173, 732 N.Y.S.2d 365;see Jomarron v. State of New York, 23 A.D.3d 527, 528, 806 N.Y.S.2d 617).
Here, the claimant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a timely claim, and also failed to adequately demonstrate the merits of his claim ( see Qing Liu v. City Univ. of N.Y., 262 A.D.2d at 474, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329;Matter of Barella v. State of N.Y., 232 A.D.2d 633, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1014;Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453, 453–454, 539 N.Y.S.2d 792). Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant's motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).