Gamoneda v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gamoneda v. New York City Board of Education

259 A.D.2d 348, 687 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 348 (Gamoneda v. New York City Board of Education) 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

Gamoneda v. New York City Board of Education, 259 A.D.2d 348, 687 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file late notices of claim and deemed the notices of claim as timely served nunc pro tunc, and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendants were in receipt of an accident report and an aided report, which indicated that there were no witnesses to the accident, filled out by the police officer who responded to the accident scene, they had, from the outset, notice of the facts upon which plaintiff’s claim is premised (see, Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 AD2d 38, 39-40). Thus, the motion court properly deemed plaintiff’s late notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. Defendants’ claim that they were prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay is additionally and significantly undermined by the circumstance that the icy condition to which plaintiff attributes her injury was highly transitory and would [349]*349not have remained for defendants’ investigation even if plaintiffs notices had been timely filed, i.e., within 90 days of the accident (see, Matter of Strauss v New York City Tr. Auth., 195 AD2d 322). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file late notices of claim and deemed the notices of claim as timely served nunc pro tunc, and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendants were in receipt of an accident report and an aided report, which indicated that there were no witnesses to the accident, filled out by the police officer who responded to the accident scene, they had, from the outset, notice of the facts upon which plaintiff’s claim is premised (see, Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 AD2d 38, 39-40). Thus, the motion court properly deemed plaintiff’s late notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. Defendants’ claim that they were prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay is additionally and significantly undermined by the circumstance that the icy condition to which plaintiff attributes her injury was highly transitory and would [349]*349not have remained for defendants’ investigation even if plaintiffs notices had been timely filed, i.e., within 90 days of the accident (see, Matter of Strauss v New York City Tr. Auth., 195 AD2d 322). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 348, 687 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamoneda-v-new-york-city-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack