Acosta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acosta v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 489, 725 N.Y.S.2d 208, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 489 (Acosta v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 489, 725 N.Y.S.2d 208, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 12, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In deciding whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider, inter alia, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Kittredge v New York City Hous. Auth., 275 AD2d 746; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application (see, Kittredge v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Matter of Dominguez v City of New York, 272 AD2d 326; Walker v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 54; Matter of Landa v City of New York, 252 AD2d 525; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 12, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In deciding whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider, inter alia, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Kittredge v New York City Hous. Auth., 275 AD2d 746; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application (see, Kittredge v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Matter of Dominguez v City of New York, 272 AD2d 326; Walker v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 54; Matter of Landa v City of New York, 252 AD2d 525; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 489, 725 N.Y.S.2d 208, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack