Donovan v. Board of Education of Peekskill Union Free School District

New York Supreme Court

Donovan v. Board of Education of Peekskill Union Free School District

198 Misc. 330, 102 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2374

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 Misc. 330 (Donovan v. Board of Education of Peekskill Union Free School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donovan v. Board of Education of Peekskill Union Free School District, 198 Misc. 330, 102 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2374 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Coyne, J.

Application for leave to file a notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Petitioner, a ■ woman fifty-six years of age, sustained personal injuries on January 12,1950, while on premises controlled by the Board of Education of Peekskill "Union Free School District. The injury consisted of a break in her right anide in three different places. On January 13,1950, petitioner was taken to the Peekskill Hospital where an operation was performed on her ankle, and a screw inserted into her ankle joint to hold the bones in proper alignment. A cast was applied which petitioner wore until January 28, 1950, when a new cast with a walking iron was applied. Petitioner returned to her home from the hospital on February 4, 1950, and remained there until March 11, 1950, when she visited the hospital for the purpose of having the second cast removed. Petitioner’s time to file a notice of claim expired on March 12, 1950. It appears from the affidavit of petitioner’s attorney, annexed to the moving papers, that he was not retained until March 29, 1950. The present application by notice of motion dated April 15, 1950, was returnable before the court on April 29, 1950.

It is regrettable that petitioner’s notice of claim was not filed in due time. However, the court is satisfied, on the facts shown, that her failure to timely file was not due to any mental or physical disability on her part. While consideration has been given to the decision in Braunstein v. City of New York (272 App. Div. 1060 [2d Dept., Nov. 1947]), the court is inclined to follow the holding in Haas v. Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst (298 N. Y. 757 [Dec. 1948]). In the latter case, under a factual situation much more favorable to the petitioner, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed an order of the Appellate Division denying the application. The court has also given" consideration to the more liberal policy recently promulgated by the Legislature in increasing the filing period from sixty to ninety days. (L. 1950, ch. 481, eff. Sept. 1, 1950.) On the law as it now stands, the court is obliged to conform to the policy enunciated by the Court of Appeals. Motion denied. Submit order.

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

Coyne, J.

Application for leave to file a notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Petitioner, a ■ woman fifty-six years of age, sustained personal injuries on January 12,1950, while on premises controlled by the Board of Education of Peekskill "Union Free School District. The injury consisted of a break in her right anide in three different places. On January 13,1950, petitioner was taken to the Peekskill Hospital where an operation was performed on her ankle, and a screw inserted into her ankle joint to hold the bones in proper alignment. A cast was applied which petitioner wore until January 28, 1950, when a new cast with a walking iron was applied. Petitioner returned to her home from the hospital on February 4, 1950, and remained there until March 11, 1950, when she visited the hospital for the purpose of having the second cast removed. Petitioner’s time to file a notice of claim expired on March 12, 1950. It appears from the affidavit of petitioner’s attorney, annexed to the moving papers, that he was not retained until March 29, 1950. The present application by notice of motion dated April 15, 1950, was returnable before the court on April 29, 1950.

It is regrettable that petitioner’s notice of claim was not filed in due time. However, the court is satisfied, on the facts shown, that her failure to timely file was not due to any mental or physical disability on her part. While consideration has been given to the decision in Braunstein v. City of New York (272 App. Div. 1060 [2d Dept., Nov. 1947]), the court is inclined to follow the holding in Haas v. Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst (298 N. Y. 757 [Dec. 1948]). In the latter case, under a factual situation much more favorable to the petitioner, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed an order of the Appellate Division denying the application. The court has also given" consideration to the more liberal policy recently promulgated by the Legislature in increasing the filing period from sixty to ninety days. (L. 1950, ch. 481, eff. Sept. 1, 1950.) On the law as it now stands, the court is obliged to conform to the policy enunciated by the Court of Appeals. Motion denied. Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 Misc. 330, 102 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donovan-v-board-of-education-of-peekskill-union-free-school-district-nysupct-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack