Carty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carty v. City of New York

228 A.D.2d 592, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7090

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 592 (Carty 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

Carty v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 592, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The question of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the Court (see, Matter of Fok v City of New York, 224 AD2d 693; Matter of Gruber v City of New York, 156 AD2d 450). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application. The alleged claim accrued in June 1993, and the petitioner failed to present an adequate excuse for her delay in presenting the claim nine months later. Moreover, the delay would substantially prejudice the respondents in maintaining their defense on the merits (see, Matter of Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702; Matter of Fok v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

The question of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the Court (see, Matter of Fok v City of New York, 224 AD2d 693; Matter of Gruber v City of New York, 156 AD2d 450). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application. The alleged claim accrued in June 1993, and the petitioner failed to present an adequate excuse for her delay in presenting the claim nine months later. Moreover, the delay would substantially prejudice the respondents in maintaining their defense on the merits (see, Matter of Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702; Matter of Fok v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 592, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carty-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack