Gallino v. Village of Shoreham

222 A.D.2d 506, 634 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 506 (Gallino v. Village of Shoreham) 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
Gallino v. Village of Shoreham, 222 A.D.2d 506, 634 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated April 28, 1994, which, inter alia, granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the finding that the one-day delay beyond the 90-day time period to serve a notice of claim on behalf of the infant petitioner resulted from the infant’s on-going treatment for serious injuries and her parent’s concern for the child’s condition (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Matter of Holmes v New York City Hous. Auth., 201 AD2d 650; Matter of Brown v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 667). The decision to grant the petitioners’ application under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) was within the court’s discretion inasmuch as the application was made within the one year and 90-day period of limitations imposed by General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) (c). Considering the overall circumstances, including the minimal delay in serving the notice of claim and the lack of substantial prejudice to the appellants as a result of the delay, the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of the infant petitioner was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Holmes v New York City Hous. Auth., supra). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Godoy v. Nassau Health Care Corp.
49 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Knightner v. City of New York
269 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Terrell Battle v. City of New York
261 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Flynn v. Town of Oyster Bay
256 A.D.2d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Major v. County of Nassau
256 A.D.2d 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Presley v. City of New York
254 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Abad v. Jawokowski
248 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Daniels v. City of New York
243 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 506, 634 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallino-v-village-of-shoreham-nyappdiv-1995.