Diallo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diallo v. City of New York

249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3933

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 390 (Diallo 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

Diallo v. City of New York, 249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding [391]*391pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 1997, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since the petitioner did not present an adequate excuse for his lengthy delay in presenting the claim, the respondent did not acquire actual notice of the claim through other sources, and the delay would substantially prejudice the respondent’s ability to investigate and defend against the claim (see, e.g., Matter of Carty v City of New York, 228 AD2d 592; Matter of Fok v City of New York, 224 AD2d 693; Matter of Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding [391]*391pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 1997, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since the petitioner did not present an adequate excuse for his lengthy delay in presenting the claim, the respondent did not acquire actual notice of the claim through other sources, and the delay would substantially prejudice the respondent’s ability to investigate and defend against the claim (see, e.g., Matter of Carty v City of New York, 228 AD2d 592; Matter of Fok v City of New York, 224 AD2d 693; Matter of Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diallo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack