Castlegrande v. Mahopac Central School District

292 A.D.2d 604, 739 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 604 (Castlegrande v. Mahopac 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.

Bluebook
Castlegrande v. Mahopac Central School District, 292 A.D.2d 604, 739 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 6, 2001, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the application is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider (1) whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a [605]*605timely notice of claim, (2) whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Bergren v Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 278 AD2d 492; Shapey v East Rockaway Union Free School Dist., 277 AD2d 441; Matter of Morrison v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 244 AD2d 487). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application. The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for his delay, actual knowledge of the claim on the part of the appellant, or the absence of prejudice to the appellant. Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

del Carmen v. Brentwood Union Free School District
7 A.D.3d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Farrell v. Bay Shore Union Free School District
309 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bergmann v. County of Nassau
297 A.D.2d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 604, 739 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castlegrande-v-mahopac-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2002.