Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bonaventure v. New York State Thruway Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 24, 1985Published

1Dissent

Mahoney, P. J., and Levine, J.,

dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Levine, J. Levine, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. Of the six statutory factors required to be considered on an application for permission to file a late claim (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]), the Court of Claims relied on only two in exercising its discretion to deny the motion, namely, the absence of an adequate excuse for the delay and the lack of a meritorious claim. Clearly, under the facts and procedural circumstances, the State and the Thruway Authority had adequate notice and opportunity…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bay Terrace Cooperative Section IV, Inc. v. New York State Employees' Retirement System Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement SystemNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. King v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  3. Reinmuth v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  4. Kelly v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  5. Kelley v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API