Garber v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garber v. City of New York

222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12914

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 588 (Garber 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

Garber v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated June 22, 1994, which denied his application.

[589]*589Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim. Additionally, we find that under the circumstances of this case the municipality did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter.

Therefore, we cannot say that the Supreme Court acted improvidently in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d 605, quoting Matter of Sosa v City of New York, 206 AD2d 374). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, 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 pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated June 22, 1994, which denied his application.

[589]*589Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim. Additionally, we find that under the circumstances of this case the municipality did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter.

Therefore, we cannot say that the Supreme Court acted improvidently in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d 605, quoting Matter of Sosa v City of New York, 206 AD2d 374). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garber-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack