Estevez v. Police Department of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estevez v. Police Department of New York

169 A.D.2d 484, 564 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 376

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 484 (Estevez v. Police Department 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

Estevez v. Police Department of New York, 169 A.D.2d 484, 564 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered October 20, 1989, which granted petitioners’ motion to file an amended late notice of claim against respondent New York City Housing Authority Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ inadvertent failure to name and serve the New York City Housing Authority Police Department was excusable in light of counsel’s reliance upon the information contained upon a warrant used to support the police activity underlying the causes of action in each case. A subsequent investigation revealed that the New York City Housing Authority police were also involved in the incident, and upon such discovery, petitioners’ counsel moved promptly to extend its time to amend and serve a notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e (5) of the General Municipal Law. Respondent New York Housing Authority had actual notice of the event underlying petitioners’ claims, and was given actual notice of petitioners’ claim within a reasonable time after expiration of the statutory 90-day period. Accordingly, respondent has failed to demonstrate any real prejudice that would result by allowing petitioners to proceed with their claim. Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered October 20, 1989, which granted petitioners’ motion to file an amended late notice of claim against respondent New York City Housing Authority Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ inadvertent failure to name and serve the New York City Housing Authority Police Department was excusable in light of counsel’s reliance upon the information contained upon a warrant used to support the police activity underlying the causes of action in each case. A subsequent investigation revealed that the New York City Housing Authority police were also involved in the incident, and upon such discovery, petitioners’ counsel moved promptly to extend its time to amend and serve a notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e (5) of the General Municipal Law. Respondent New York Housing Authority had actual notice of the event underlying petitioners’ claims, and was given actual notice of petitioners’ claim within a reasonable time after expiration of the statutory 90-day period. Accordingly, respondent has failed to demonstrate any real prejudice that would result by allowing petitioners to proceed with their claim. Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 484, 564 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estevez-v-police-department-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1991.