Coyne v. Cold-Spring Harbor Central School District

132 A.D.2d 660, 518 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49205
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 660 (Coyne v. Cold-Spring Harbor 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
Coyne v. Cold-Spring Harbor Central School District, 132 A.D.2d 660, 518 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered November 26, 1986, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the application is denied.

Although the petitioner purports to justify the delay of almost two years from the date of the incident until the date of his initial application on the ground that he was an infant at the time it occurred, he offers no excuse for the 10-month delay in seeking relief pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) once he attained his majority. Infancy does not automatically entitle a claimant to an extension of the 90-day notice requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (cf., Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 NY2d 256). "Were we to find the delay here excusable, precious little of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law would survive in this department” (Matter of Morris v County of Suffolk, 88 AD2d 956, 957, affd 58 NY2d 767; see also, Goudie v County of Putnam, 95 AD2d 823, 824). Under the circumstances the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, abused its discretion in granting the application. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tineo v. City of New York
273 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Shea v. City of New York Board of Education
222 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Kornell v. Clarkstown Central School District
202 A.D.2d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Doukas v. East Meadow Union Free School District
187 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Rios v. City of New York
180 A.D.2d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Schirripa v. Birch Lane Elementary School
154 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Carpenter v. Town of Babylon
150 A.D.2d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.2d 660, 518 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyne-v-cold-spring-harbor-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1987.