CASALE, KAREN v. LIVERPOOL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
This text of CASALE, KAREN v. LIVERPOOL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (CASALE, KAREN v. LIVERPOOL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT) 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.
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
985 CA 12-00515 PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
KAREN CASALE, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF STEPHANIE CASALE, AN INFANT, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LIVERPOOL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (JENNA W. KLUCSIK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
KUEHNER LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRIAN D. ROY OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered January 26, 2012. The order granted the application of claimant for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Although a court may properly consider whether a claimant provided a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see Parton v Onondaga County, 81 AD3d 1433, 1433- 1434), a claimant’s failure to tender a reasonable excuse “is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” (Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hale v Webster Cent. School Dist., 12 AD3d 1052, 1053). Here, claimant “made a persuasive showing that [respondent] ‘acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim’ . . . [and respondent has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” (Wetzel Servs. Corp. v Town of Amherst, 207 AD2d 965, 965; see § 50-e [5]).
Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
CASALE, KAREN v. LIVERPOOL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casale-karen-v-liverpool-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2012.