Opinion
Submitted April 30, 1999
June 14, 1999
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), entered March 12, 1998, which denied their application for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
Krinsky Musumeci, New York, N.Y. (Carmine V. Musumeci of counsel), for appellants.
Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), for respondent.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
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 permit a claimant to file a late claim ( see, Savino v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 254). No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative ( see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v. New York State Employees' Policemen's Firemen's Retirement System, 55 N.Y.2d 979; Holly v. State of New York, 191 A.D.2d 678, 679; Carvalho v. State of New York, 176 A.D.2d 317).
The Court of Claims, after weighing all of the evidence, determined that the claimants failed to demonstrate a legally-acceptable excuse for their failure to file a timely claim and also failed to adequately demonstrate the merits of their claim ( see, Barella v. State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 633; Savino v. State of New York, supra; Cabral v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 453). Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimants' application.