Chmielewski v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chmielewski v. City of New York

97 A.D.2d 730, 468 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 730 (Chmielewski 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

Chmielewski v. City of New York, 97 A.D.2d 730, 468 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (one paper; Martin Evans, J.), entered September 8, 1982, denying petitioner’s application for leave to serve late notices of claim pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the application to serve such late notices of claim granted. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered December 20, 1982, which denied reargument and/or renewal is treated as one for reargument and dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable. Petitioner was employed by a subcontractor engaged in construction and demolition work on a site alleged to be owned either by the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or by the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The precise nature of their respective interests in the construction site is not clearly set forth. On November 17, 1981, a section of the structure collapsed causing a steel beam to fall on petitioner’s foot, crushing it. Petitioner was immediately taken to Bellevue Hospital where he remained until December 22, 1981. He was readmitted to the hospital on January 5, 1982 and continued to be confined therein until January 18, 1982. During this period no notice of claim was filed against the governmental authorities as required by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The time to do so expired on February 15,1982. In March, 1982 petitioner moved for leave to file late notices of claim. Special Term denied the application. We think that this was an abuse of discretion. During the statutory period fixed by section 50-e petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 48 days. The injuries suffered by him appeared to have been quite serious and required surgery. Given these circumstances the comparatively short delay — approximately one month — should not deprive petitioner of the right to pursue his claim (cf. Heiman v City of New York, 85 AD2d 25). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Alexander, JJ.

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

Order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (one paper; Martin Evans, J.), entered September 8, 1982, denying petitioner’s application for leave to serve late notices of claim pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the application to serve such late notices of claim granted. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered December 20, 1982, which denied reargument and/or renewal is treated as one for reargument and dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable. Petitioner was employed by a subcontractor engaged in construction and demolition work on a site alleged to be owned either by the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or by the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The precise nature of their respective interests in the construction site is not clearly set forth. On November 17, 1981, a section of the structure collapsed causing a steel beam to fall on petitioner’s foot, crushing it. Petitioner was immediately taken to Bellevue Hospital where he remained until December 22, 1981. He was readmitted to the hospital on January 5, 1982 and continued to be confined therein until January 18, 1982. During this period no notice of claim was filed against the governmental authorities as required by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The time to do so expired on February 15,1982. In March, 1982 petitioner moved for leave to file late notices of claim. Special Term denied the application. We think that this was an abuse of discretion. During the statutory period fixed by section 50-e petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 48 days. The injuries suffered by him appeared to have been quite serious and required surgery. Given these circumstances the comparatively short delay — approximately one month — should not deprive petitioner of the right to pursue his claim (cf. Heiman v City of New York, 85 AD2d 25). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 730, 468 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chmielewski-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack