Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant's motion to file a late claim. Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the court properly determined that the claimant's failure to serve a timely claim upon the Attorney General due to ignorance of the law was not excusable (see Anderson v City Univ. of N.Y. at Queens Coll.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.