Bussey v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bussey v. City of New York

50 A.D.3d 938, 854 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 938 (Bussey 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

Bussey v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 938, 854 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated March 28, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).

[939]*939Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The defendant City of New York acquired notice of the essential facts of the subject incident within a reasonable time after the statutory 90-day-period following the accident (see Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 998 [2006]; cf. Matter of National Sur. Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 266 AD2d 550 [1999]). Moreover, the City was not prejudiced by the short delay (see Lossino v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 383 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated March 28, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).

[939]*939Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The defendant City of New York acquired notice of the essential facts of the subject incident within a reasonable time after the statutory 90-day-period following the accident (see Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 998 [2006]; cf. Matter of National Sur. Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 266 AD2d 550 [1999]). Moreover, the City was not prejudiced by the short delay (see Lossino v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 383 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 938, 854 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bussey-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack