Dominguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominguez v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 326, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4853

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 326 (Dominguez 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

Dominguez v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 326, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated January 6, 1999, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, as the petitioner did not provide any reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see, General [327]*327Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Dube v City of New York, 158 AD2d 457, 458). Additionally, although a police report was filed regarding the accident, it did not itself constitute actual notice to the respondent of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim (see, Matter of Deegan v City of New York, 227 AD2d 620; Matter of Dancy v Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 AD2d 413; Matter of Dube v City of New York, supra; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 255-258; see also, Olivera v City of New York, 270 AD2d 5). Finally, there was no evidence rebutting the respondent’s claim that it was prejudiced as a result of the petitioner’s delay in filing the notice of claim (see, Matter of Deegan v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, 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 appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated January 6, 1999, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, as the petitioner did not provide any reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see, General [327]*327Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Dube v City of New York, 158 AD2d 457, 458). Additionally, although a police report was filed regarding the accident, it did not itself constitute actual notice to the respondent of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim (see, Matter of Deegan v City of New York, 227 AD2d 620; Matter of Dancy v Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 AD2d 413; Matter of Dube v City of New York, supra; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 255-258; see also, Olivera v City of New York, 270 AD2d 5). Finally, there was no evidence rebutting the respondent’s claim that it was prejudiced as a result of the petitioner’s delay in filing the notice of claim (see, Matter of Deegan v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 326, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack