LEE WILLIAMS CLAIMANT APPELLANT v. STATE OF NEW YORK AND SUNY AT BUFFALO RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

LEE WILLIAMS, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEW YORK AND SUNY AT BUFFALO, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.

CA 15–00698

Decided: November 20, 2015

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. DOLCE PANEPINTO, P.C., BUFFALO (PHILLIP URBAN OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT–APPELLANT. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (DANIEL HUNTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims.  We write only to note that we reject claimant's contention that merit alone should have warranted granting his motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).  “Nothing in the statute makes the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Empls.  Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 N.Y.2d 979, 981) and, in any event, we agree with the court that claimant did not “adequately set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that his claim was meritorious” (Olsen v. State of New York, 45 AD3d 824, 824).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court