Garvin v. County of Erie

174 A.D.2d 1054, 573 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9021

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. [1055] Memorandum: The court did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Claimant failed to prove that the County had actual notice of the incident upon which his claim is based (see, Wencek v County of Chautauqua, 132 AD2d 950, 951; cf., Matter of Jakubowicz v Dunkirk Urban Renewal Agency, 75 AD2d 1019), nor did he provide any excuse for the delay in filing his notice of claim (see, Baehre v County of Erie, 94 AD2d 943). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Late Notice of Claim.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Garvin v. County of Erie, 174 A.D.2d 1054, 573 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

174 A.D.2d 1054 (Garvin v. County of Erie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jakubowicz v. Dunkirk Urban Renewal Agency, Inc.
75 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Baehre v. County of Erie
94 A.D.2d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Wencek v. County of Chautauqua
132 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)