Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven

212 A.D.2d 605, 622 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1454
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 605 (Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven) 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
Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven, 212 A.D.2d 605, 622 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated September 17, 1993, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The key factors in determining whether leave to [serve] a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining [606]*606its defense on the merits” (Matter of Sosa v City of New York, 206 AD2d 374).

Although the petitioner’s alleged claim accrued on October 2, 1992, he did not attempt to serve a notice of claim until May 1993 which is almost eight months later. Furthermore, he did not consult an attorney until January 28, 1993, by which time the period within which he was required to have served a notice of claim had already expired.

The petitioner contends that he did not timely consult an attorney because he believed that Workers’ Compensation was his sole remedy for the injury, and he was ignorant of the possibility of recovering from the respondents. These are insufficient grounds to constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Matter of Ealey v City of New York, 204 AD2d 720). In addition, the petitioner failed to show that the respondents timely acquired knowledge of the accident.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not act improvidently in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Singh v. City of New York
88 A.D.3d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Quarto v. City of New York
20 Misc. 3d 473 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Bruzzese v. City of New York
34 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Welch v. New York City Housing Authority
7 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Morrison v. New York City Health
244 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Dawkins v. New York City Department of Motor Equipment
243 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Amin v. City of New York
243 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
James v. City of New York
242 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
DelValle v. City of New York
242 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Affleck v. County of Nassau
240 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Resto v. City of New York
240 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gangloff v. East Islip School District
240 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Booker v. Wyandanch Union Free School District
239 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Djeddah v. County of Westchester
239 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Brito v. City of New York
237 A.D.2d 286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Pruden v. New York City Board of Education
235 A.D.2d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
McDonald v. City of New York
234 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Sverdlin v. City of New York
229 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
O'Dowd v. City of New York
226 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Fok v. City of New York
224 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 605, 622 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buddenhagen-v-town-of-brookhaven-nyappdiv-1995.