Opinion
May 31, 1988
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Court of Claims, after weighing the criteria delineated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), granted the claimant permission to file a late notice of claim. Contrary to the State's contentions, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by the ruling. The record amply supports the conclusion that the claimant sustained severe and extensive injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident, which necessitated prolonged hospitalization and a period of convalescence thereafter. The claimant, therefore, presented a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the notice of claim, namely, his physical incapacitation (see, Matter of Savelli v City of New York, 104 A.D.2d 943; Flynn v City of Long Beach, 94 A.D.2d 713; De Olden v State of New York, 91 A.D.2d 1057).
The documentation contained in the record, which includes a police accident report and a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles MV-104 form, provides further support for the conclusion that the State had acquired knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the claim and that it had an adequate opportunity to conduct an investigation of the incident (see, Matter of Gerzel v City of New York, 117 A.D.2d 549; Hayden v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 103 A.D.2d 765; Trakis v City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 569). This determination is buttressed by the fact that an employee of the State was not only present at the accident scene but was involved in the collision itself (see, Whitehead v Centerville Fire Dist., 90 A.D.2d 655; Matter of Ziecker v Town of Orchard Park, 70 A.D.2d 422, affd 51 N.Y.2d 957).
Finally, we note that the remaining factors enumerated in the statute were also properly resolved in the claimant's favor. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.