Farrell v. Bay Shore Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrell v. Bay Shore Union Free School District

309 A.D.2d 935, 766 N.Y.S.2d 98

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 935 (Farrell v. Bay Shore Union Free School District) 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

Farrell v. Bay Shore Union Free School District, 309 A.D.2d 935, 766 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the application is granted, and the notice of claim is deemed served.

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider (1) whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Castlegrande v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 292 AD2d 604 [2002]; Matter of Bergren v Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 278 AD2d 492 [2000]). Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioners’ application should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, 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 petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the application is granted, and the notice of claim is deemed served.

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider (1) whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Castlegrande v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 292 AD2d 604 [2002]; Matter of Bergren v Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 278 AD2d 492 [2000]). Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioners’ application should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 935, 766 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-bay-shore-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack