Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Anderson v. City University of New York At Queens College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 14, 2004

8 A.D.3d 413; 778 N.Y.S.2d 304; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8425

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Olsen v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Williams v. City Univ. of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Delamota v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Godfrey v. City of New Rochelle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
White v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Feliciano v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Reaves v. New York City Hous. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*414In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, J.), dated July 18, 2003, 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.

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim. The court, having weighed the statutorily-enumerated factors, properly determined that the claimant’s delay in filing his claim due to ignorance of the law was not excusable (see Matter of Tineo v City of New York, 273 AD2d 397 [2000]; Matter of E.K. v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540 [1997]) and that he also failed to adequately set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that his claim was meritorious (see Qing Liu v City Univ. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 473 [1999]; Matter of Light v County of Nassau, 187 AD2d 720, 721 [1992]). Furthermore, the claimant failed to show that the defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim since the “recreation incident report” prepared by the claimant made no mention of the allegedly defective condition and did not connect the claimant’s injuries to any negligence on the part of the defendant (see Quilliam v State of New York, 282 AD2d 590, 591 [2001]; Matter of Light v County of Nassau, supra at 721). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.