Alvarenga v. Finlay

225 A.D.2d 617, 639 N.Y.2d 115, 639 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2137
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 617 (Alvarenga v. Finlay) 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
Alvarenga v. Finlay, 225 A.D.2d 617, 639 N.Y.2d 115, 639 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The General Municipal Law allows for the exercise of considerable discretion in determining whether to permit the service of a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Harris v Dormitory Auth., 168 AD2d 560). In exercising its discretion, the court is to consider (1) whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the municipality acquired actual -notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality’s maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698; Matter of Charles v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 166 AD2d 526).

[618]*618While the reasonableness of the excuse proffered by the petitioner in this case may be open to question, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal (see, Matter of Morgan v New York City Hous. Auth., 181 AD2d 890). The passenger in the petitioner’s automobile commenced a lawsuit against the County of Suffolk (hereinafter the County) and a timely notice of claim was served in that action, which arose from the same automobile accident that is the subject of this action. Thus, the County acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the petitioner’s claim within 90 days after the claim arose (see, Matter of Robertson v City of New York, 146 AD2d 456, 457, affd 74 NY2d 781). In addition, the County has failed to substantiate its conclusory assertion that the petitioner’s delay in serving a notice of claim has prejudiced its ability to defend this action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its broad discretion by granting the petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ortiz v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 34287(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Matter of Tejada v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 3370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lockwood v. City of Yonkers
57 Misc. 3d 728 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
Joy v. County of Suffolk
89 A.D.3d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Billman v. Town of Deerpark
73 A.D.3d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Catterson v. Suffolk County Department of Health Services
49 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nacipucha v. City of New York
18 Misc. 3d 846 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Jordan v. City of New York
41 A.D.3d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Perez v. Empire Bus Co.
13 Misc. 3d 535 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Perkins v. City of New York
26 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Cruz v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
9 A.D.3d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Termini v. Valley Stream Union Free School District No. 13
2 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Nieves v. Girimonte
309 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gilbert v. Eden Central School District
306 A.D.2d 925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Medley v. Cichon
305 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Anderson v. City of New York
288 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Staley v. Piper
285 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Urgiles v. New York City School Construction Authority
283 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Love v. City of Auburn
280 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cox-Waaiz v. City of New York
248 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 617, 639 N.Y.2d 115, 639 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarenga-v-finlay-nyappdiv-1996.