Baldeo v. City of New York

127 A.D.2d 809, 511 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53412
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 809 (Baldeo 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
Baldeo v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 809, 511 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Industrial Development Agency appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated April 14, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) permits the court to consider all relevant factors and to exercise considerable discretion in determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York, 115 AD2d 604, 605; Matter of Lucas v City of New York, 91 AD2d 637). At bar, after reviewing the circumstances of the plaintiffs’ application, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to file a late notice of claim. We concur in the court’s determination that considering all the relevant factors, the plaintiffs have established a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve their notice of claim. The greater part of the delay was attributable to the plaintiffs’ excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should have been asserted (cf., Tadros v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 112 AD2d 85, 86). Moreover, the appellant’s conclusory allegation of severe prejudice is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York, supra, at 606; Pepe v Somers Cent. School Dist., 108 AD2d 799, 800). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

National Surety Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh
266 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Horowitz v. New York City School Construction Authority
168 Misc. 2d 598 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Guarneri v. Town of Oyster Bay
224 A.D.2d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Pecchio v. National Safety Environmental
211 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Pakhomov v. New York City Transit Authority
205 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Tarnaras v. Farmingdale Union Free School District
205 A.D.2d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Strauss v. New York City Transit Authority
195 A.D.2d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Bell v. City of New York
179 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Sanders v. New York City Housing Authority
170 A.D.2d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Friedman v. Syosset Central School District
154 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Stenowich v. Colonie Industrial Development Agency
151 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 809, 511 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldeo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1987.