Denisco v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Denisco v. City of New York

309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2003 WL 22351646, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 611 (Denisco 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

Denisco v. City of New York, 309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2003 WL 22351646, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defect in a bicycle path owned or maintained by defendants, denied plaintiffs application to serve a late notice of claim on defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s denial of the application to file a late notice of claim was not an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances (see Matter of Vargas v New York City Hous. Auth., 232 AD2d 263 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 817 [1997]; Crowell v City of New York, 228 AD2d 322 [1996]; compare Matter of Gherardi v City of New York, 294 AD2d 101 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defect in a bicycle path owned or maintained by defendants, denied plaintiffs application to serve a late notice of claim on defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s denial of the application to file a late notice of claim was not an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances (see Matter of Vargas v New York City Hous. Auth., 232 AD2d 263 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 817 [1997]; Crowell v City of New York, 228 AD2d 322 [1996]; compare Matter of Gherardi v City of New York, 294 AD2d 101 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2003 WL 22351646, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denisco-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack