Fok v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fok v. City of New York

224 A.D.2d 693, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1856

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 693 (Fok 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

Fok v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 693, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 21, 1992, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The question of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702; Matter of Gruber v City of New York, 156 AD2d 450). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application. The alleged claim accrued in August 1991, and the petitioner failed to present a legally acceptable excuse for his delay in presenting the claim one year later. In addition, the petitioner failed to show that the respondents timely acquired actual knowledge of the accident or that the respondents would not suffer substantial prejudice in maintaining their defense on the merits (see, Rudisel v City of New York, supra; Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d 605). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, 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 petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 21, 1992, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The question of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Rudisel v City of New York, 217 AD2d 702; Matter of Gruber v City of New York, 156 AD2d 450). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application. The alleged claim accrued in August 1991, and the petitioner failed to present a legally acceptable excuse for his delay in presenting the claim one year later. In addition, the petitioner failed to show that the respondents timely acquired actual knowledge of the accident or that the respondents would not suffer substantial prejudice in maintaining their defense on the merits (see, Rudisel v City of New York, supra; Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d 605). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 693, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fok-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack