Claim of Cohan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Cohan v. City of New York

23 A.D.2d 554, 256 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4838

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 554 (Claim of Cohan 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

Claim of Cohan v. City of New York, 23 A.D.2d 554, 256 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on or about August 27, 1964, granting the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. Subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law authorizes an extension of time within which to file a notice of claim where, inter alla, “the claimant is an infant * * # and by reason of such disability fails to serve a notice of claim within the time specified”. It has been held that an extension may only be granted where the disability of infancy is proximately related to the failure to file within the 90-day period. (Schnee v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 1130, affd, 1 N Y 2d 697.) The moving papers fall far short of showing the existence of such a relationship. To the contrary they reveal that claimant’s infancy was not the cause of the delay. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order entered on or about August 27, 1964, granting the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. Subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law authorizes an extension of time within which to file a notice of claim where, inter alla, “the claimant is an infant * * # and by reason of such disability fails to serve a notice of claim within the time specified”. It has been held that an extension may only be granted where the disability of infancy is proximately related to the failure to file within the 90-day period. (Schnee v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 1130, affd, 1 N Y 2d 697.) The moving papers fall far short of showing the existence of such a relationship. To the contrary they reveal that claimant’s infancy was not the cause of the delay. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 554, 256 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-cohan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack