Fouto v. City of Yonkers

83 A.D.3d 708, 919 N.Y.S.2d 883
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 5, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 708 (Fouto v. City of Yonkers) 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
Fouto v. City of Yonkers, 83 A.D.3d 708, 919 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

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, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered April 27, 2010, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, a court shall consider, as key factors, whether (1) the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (3) the claimant was an infant, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Vicari v Grand Ave. Middle School, 52 AD3d 838 [2008]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 856 [2007]; Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 998 [2006]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717 [2005]). Here, the petitioner’s conclusory assertions failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and neither the police call report nor the accident reports filed by the skating rink manager were sufficient to charge the City of Yonkers with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter. Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in moving for leave to serve a late notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the City’s ability to maintain a defense on the merits. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

"Jane Doe," v. Taylor
2018 NY Slip Op 5573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Leon v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 5165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Khan v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
135 A.D.3d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Castaneda v. Nassau Health Care Corp.
89 A.D.3d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A.D.3d 708, 919 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fouto-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2011.