Opinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Gerard Weisberg, J.).
The appeal is untimely because the notice of appeal was served and filed more than 35 days after the dates of service of all three orders with notice of entry (CPLR 5513 [a]; 5515 [1]; 2103 [b] [2]; see, Placede v. City of New York, 210 A.D.2d 18). Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm. The motion to amend the caption was properly denied because the court did not have jurisdiction over CUNY at the time it was made ( see, Brinkley v. City Univ., 92 A.D.2d 805). The motion to vacate claimant's default was properly denied because claimant failed to allege any wrongdoing on the part of the State, the only named defendant at that juncture. The motion to file a late claim was properly denied because claimant failed to allege an accrual date (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]; see, Park v. State of New York, 226 A.D.2d 153), and also because, accepting the December 1990 accrual date stated in the original claim, the claim was time-barred (Court of Claims Act § 10; see, Doe v. State of New York, 221 A.D.2d 218, 219).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ. [ See, 157 Misc.2d 710.]