Alexander v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. City of New York

2 A.D.3d 332, 769 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13679

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 332 (Alexander 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

Alexander v. City of New York, 2 A.D.3d 332, 769 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Súpreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 26, 2002, denying petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a timely notice of claim, failed to establish that respondents had notice of the facts constituting his claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and failed to show that respondents will not be substantially prejudiced in their ability to investigate this matter and defend the claim on the merits (Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320 [2003]). His excuse for the delay—that he was awaiting an accident report—was unreasonable, inasmuch as he had all the information necessary to file a timely notice. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the facts upon which liability is predicated were not discernible from the workers’ compensation report allegedly filed with the City by petitioner’s employer (see Matter of Mc-Loughlin v City of New York, 178 AD2d 193, 194 [1991]). Moreover, substantial passage of time since February 2001 has prejudiced respondents’ ability to investigate the alleged defects in the ladder or to collect testimony from witnesses whose memories are fresh. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Súpreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 26, 2002, denying petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a timely notice of claim, failed to establish that respondents had notice of the facts constituting his claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and failed to show that respondents will not be substantially prejudiced in their ability to investigate this matter and defend the claim on the merits (Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320 [2003]). His excuse for the delay—that he was awaiting an accident report—was unreasonable, inasmuch as he had all the information necessary to file a timely notice. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the facts upon which liability is predicated were not discernible from the workers’ compensation report allegedly filed with the City by petitioner’s employer (see Matter of Mc-Loughlin v City of New York, 178 AD2d 193, 194 [1991]). Moreover, substantial passage of time since February 2001 has prejudiced respondents’ ability to investigate the alleged defects in the ladder or to collect testimony from witnesses whose memories are fresh. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 332, 769 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack