New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

QUINN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-033-315, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-74698


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-033-315
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL QUINN
Claimant short name:
QUINN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-74698
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Kenneth J. Ready & Assoc.By: Brian C. Pascale, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLPBy: Suzanne M. Lodge, Esq.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 26, 2008
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a motion brought by Michael Quinn (hereinafter "movant") for permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6) due to the alleged negligence of the State of New York (hereinafter “State”)[1]. The alleged negligence occurred on September 26, 2006, on the Ellen Ferrante Bicycle Path in Wantagh State Park.

In determining a motion seeking permission to file a late claim, the Court must consider the following six enumerated factors listed in Court of Claims Act §10(6): (1) whether the delay in filing 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 failure to serve and file a timely claim or timely serve a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; (5) whether the movant has another available remedy; and (6) whether the claim appears to be meritorious. The Court in the exercise of its discretion balances these factors, and, as a general rule, the presence or absence of any one factor is not dispositive (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement System Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System, 55 NY2d 979).

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers in support of and in opposition to the motion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the statutory factors favor movant’s application and therefore, grants permission to file a late claim (Jomarron v State of New York, 23 AD3d 527). Movant is directed to serve and file the proposed claim within forty-five (45) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order in accordance with §§10, 11 and 11-a of the Court of Claims Act.


September 26, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

HON. JAMES J. LACK
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1].The following papers were read and considered on movant’s motion: Notice of Motion dated March 11, 2008 and filed March 20, 2008; Attorney’s Affirmation of Brian C. Pascale, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-C dated March 11, 2008 and filed March 20, 2008; Affirmation in Opposition of Suzanne M. Lodge, Esq. dated May 27, 2008 and filed June 2, 2008; Reply Affirmation of Brian C. Pascale, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A and B dated June 5, 2008 and filed June 10, 2008.