Case ID: ad2d_255/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of David Mudd et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.
    [679 NYS2d 844]
   —In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), dated June 30, 1997, which denied their application for leave to file a late claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims denied the appellants’ application to file a late claim seeking to recover damages, inter alia, for malicious prosecution (see, Court of Claims Act § 10). Because the appellants, among other things, failed to proffer an adequate excuse for their delay or demonstrate that their proposed claims had merit, (see, Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500; McGuire v Epstein, 167 AD2d 453; Molinoff v Sassower, 99 AD2d 528; Pagliarulo v Pagliarulo, 30 AD2d 840), the Court of Claims properly exercised its discretion in denying their application (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6];.Ma#er of E. K. v State of New York, 235 AD2d 540). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.