New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YORK INTERNATIONAL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-016-058, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71529


Late claim motion was granted.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):
The caption has been amended to reflect that the properly named defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Sunshine, Slott & Sunshine, P.C.By: Robert W. Slott, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 18, 2006
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


York International Corporation (“York”) moves for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”). In the proposed claim[1], it is alleged that York entered into a contract with defendant to provide maintenance services for certain “chiller equipment” at the Bronx Psychiatric Center, and that defendant failed to pay $20,000 in maintenance charges owed under the agreement for the period from August 1, 2002 through July 1, 2003. In order to determine this motion, six factors enumerated in the Act must be considered: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious. The factors are not necessarily exhaustive, nor is the presence or absence of any particular factor controlling.[2]

The first three factors – whether defendant had notice of the essential facts, had an opportunity to investigate or would be prejudiced by the granting of this motion are intertwined and may be considered together. See Brewer v State of New York, 176 Misc 2d 337, 342, 672 NYS2d 650, 655 (Ct Cl 1998). In this case, claimant outlines its efforts to obtain payment from defendant (albeit, not until the autumn of 2004). In any event, defendant does not dispute that these factors have been satisfied.

As to an alternate remedy, it is undisputed that claimant’s redress would lie solely in this court. With regard to excuse, claimant states that it was unaware of the time limitations of the Act. Such is not a recognized excuse for the purposes of the act. See, e.g., Matter of E.K. (Anonymous) v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540, 652 NYS2d 759 (2d Dept 1997), lv denied, 89 NY2d 815, 659 NYS2d 856 (1997).

The remaining factor to be considered is whether the proposed claim appears meritorious. Claimant has submitted the contract, the invoices at issue, and correspondence relating to its efforts to be paid. On balance, I find that claimant meets the standard set forth in Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Authority, 92 Misc 2d 1, 11, 399 NYS2d 395, 402-03 (Ct Cl 1977): (i) the claim “must not be patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective” and (ii) upon consideration of the entire record, including the proposed claim and any exhibits or affidavits, “there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists.”

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[3], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-71529 be granted and that within forty-five (45) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, claimant shall serve and file its claim[4] in compliance with Court of Claims Act §11 and §11-a.

September 18, 2006
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]Defendant argues that this motion should be denied because claimant failed to annex a proposed claim to its motion papers. However, as claimant rightly points out, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affirmation in support of this motion, along with the exhibits referenced therein, contain all of the information required by §11.b of the Act. Accordingly, such paragraphs and exhibits shall be construed as the proposed claim for the purposes of this motion.
  2. [2]See Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV, Inc. v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys. Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979, 449 NYS2d 185 (1982); Scarver v State of New York, 233 AD2d 858, 649 NYS2d 280 (4th Dept 1996).
  3. [3]The Court reviewed claimant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through E; defendant’s affirmation in opposition; and claimant’s reply affirmation.
  4. [4]The text of such claim shall consist of paragraphs 3 and 4 from the affirmation in support of this motion and the claim shall annex the exhibits referenced in such paragraphs.