Bay Terrace Cooperative Section IV, Inc. v. New York State Employees' Retirement System Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 55 N.Y.2d 979, 449 N.Y.S.2d 185, 434 N.E.2d 254, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3158

Decision Date: 2/18/1982

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Bay Terrace Cooperative Section IV, Inc. v. New York State Employees' Retirement System Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System, 55 N.Y.2d 979, 449 N.Y.S.2d 185, 434 N.E.2d 254, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3158 (1982)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1982

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 6% most-cited · cited by 68 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.33

N.Y. Ct. Cl.24

N.Y.1

N.Y. Sup. Ct.1

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.1

Most recently cited by10

2026Mattison v. State of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2026Viola v. SUNY Upstate Univ. Hosp. N.Y. App. Div.
2025Fox v. State of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2025Stewart v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Johnson v. State of New York
2024Silverstein v. State of New York
2024Friedlander v. State of New York
2024Scarlett v. State of New York
2023Gaity v. State of New York
2023Gustafson v. State of New York

Cites 1 case

Cedano v. City of New York

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Bay Terrace Cooperative Section IV, Inc., Appellant, v New York State Employees’ Retirement System Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Lawrence B. Lame and Arnold Eiger for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Jeremiah Jochnowitz, Shirley Adelson Siegel and Joseph F. Gibbons of counsel), for appellant.

majority

Memoranda.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that court for the exercise of its discretion.

The Appellate Division erred in determining the application to file a late claim as a matter of law (cf. Cedano v City of New York, 51 NY2d 896). Contrary to that court’s view, the tender of a reasonable excuse for delay in filing a claim is not a precondition to permission to file a late claim such as to constitute a sine qua non for the requested relief. Subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act permits late filing in the exercise of the court’s discretion after considering certain enumerated factors, expressly stated to be “among other factors”. Nothing in the statute makes the presence or absence of any one factor determinative.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.