Bast v. County of Clinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bast v. County of Clinton

173 A.D.2d 1079, 570 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207

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

DecidedMay 16, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 1079 (Bast v. County of Clinton) 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

Bast v. County of Clinton, 173 A.D.2d 1079, 570 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered May 10, 1990 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Among the factors to be considered in deciding an application to serve a late notice of claim are whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the claim and the infancy of the party making the motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Not only was the delay here unrelated to petitioner’s infancy, as counsel was retained within 90 days of the incident (see, Matter of Sampson v Cazzari, 142 AD2d 681; Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 AD2d 611, 613), but there is no evidence that respondent had actual knowledge of the claim (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 NY2d 881, 883; Matter of Howard v City of Rochester, 162 [1080]*1080AD2d 1033, 1034). In addition, petitioner has failed to give an adequate explanation of why this application was delayed for more than one year after the accident (see, Matter of Groshans v Town of Babylon, 143 AD2d 666). Under the circumstances, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s order denying petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercare, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered May 10, 1990 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Among the factors to be considered in deciding an application to serve a late notice of claim are whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the claim and the infancy of the party making the motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Not only was the delay here unrelated to petitioner’s infancy, as counsel was retained within 90 days of the incident (see, Matter of Sampson v Cazzari, 142 AD2d 681; Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 AD2d 611, 613), but there is no evidence that respondent had actual knowledge of the claim (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 NY2d 881, 883; Matter of Howard v City of Rochester, 162 [1080]*1080AD2d 1033, 1034). In addition, petitioner has failed to give an adequate explanation of why this application was delayed for more than one year after the accident (see, Matter of Groshans v Town of Babylon, 143 AD2d 666). Under the circumstances, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s order denying petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercare, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 1079, 570 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bast-v-county-of-clinton-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack