Opinion
11-20-2015
Lee WILLIAMS, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York and Suny at Buffalo, Respondents–Respondents.
Dolce Panepinto, P.C., Buffalo (Phillip Urban of Counsel), for Claimant–Appellant. Goldberg Segalla LLP, Buffalo (Daniel Hunter of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
Dolce Panepinto, P.C., Buffalo (Phillip Urban of Counsel), for Claimant–Appellant.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, Buffalo (Daniel Hunter of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
Opinion
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, 449 N.Y.S.2d 185, 434 N.E.2d 254) 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 A.D.3d 824, 824, 845 N.Y.S.2d 758).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.