Cox-Waaiz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox-Waaiz v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 467, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2268

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 467 (Cox-Waaiz 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

Cox-Waaiz v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 467, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated May 14, 1996, which denied their application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for their failure to have served a timely notice of claim or evidence as to if and when the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claims (see, Matter of Alvarenga v Finlay, 225 AD2d 617; Seif v City of New York, 218 AD2d 595; Hilton v Town of Richland, 216 AD2d 921; Matter of Lamper v City of New York, 215 AD2d 484). Given these facts, and the prejudice inuring to the respondents from the delay, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Carty v City of New York, 228 AD2d 592; Pollicino v New York [468]*468City Tr. Auth., 225 AD2d 750; Steiger v Board of Educ., 192 AD2d 517).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated May 14, 1996, which denied their application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for their failure to have served a timely notice of claim or evidence as to if and when the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claims (see, Matter of Alvarenga v Finlay, 225 AD2d 617; Seif v City of New York, 218 AD2d 595; Hilton v Town of Richland, 216 AD2d 921; Matter of Lamper v City of New York, 215 AD2d 484). Given these facts, and the prejudice inuring to the respondents from the delay, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Carty v City of New York, 228 AD2d 592; Pollicino v New York [468]*468City Tr. Auth., 225 AD2d 750; Steiger v Board of Educ., 192 AD2d 517).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 467, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-waaiz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack