Ferro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferro v. City of New York

88 A.D.2d 914, 450 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17248

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 914 (Ferro 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

Ferro v. City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 914, 450 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated May 31, 1979, which denied the application. The city has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the appeal was not timely taken. Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm the order. The motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made more than one year and 90 days after the incident in question. Thus, the court lacked power to grant the application. In any event, the action would be barred because of the failure to commence it within one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident (see General Municipal Law, § 50-i). The fact that petitioner’s attorney may have been delinquent in failing to timely commence the action is not an acceptable excuse (see Ortiz v City of New York, 28 AD2d 1098). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated May 31, 1979, which denied the application. The city has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the appeal was not timely taken. Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm the order. The motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made more than one year and 90 days after the incident in question. Thus, the court lacked power to grant the application. In any event, the action would be barred because of the failure to commence it within one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident (see General Municipal Law, § 50-i). The fact that petitioner’s attorney may have been delinquent in failing to timely commence the action is not an acceptable excuse (see Ortiz v City of New York, 28 AD2d 1098). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 914, 450 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferro-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack