Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Where, as here, the delay in filing the notice of claim was not substantial, the Court of Claims cannot be said to have abused its discretion by granting the application to file the late notice of claim with respect to the plaintiffs first cause of action, when all of the other factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (i.e., the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim and would not be prejudiced; the claimant did not have an adequate alternative remedy; and the claim appeared meritorious) were clearly in favor of the claimant (see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v. New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policeman's Fireman's Retirement Sys., 55 N.Y.2d 979; Lachica v. State of New York, 101 A.D.2d 881). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.