Gomez v. City of White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. City of White Plains

300 A.D.2d 282, 750 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 282 (Gomez v. City of White Plains) 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

Gomez v. City of White Plains, 300 A.D.2d 282, 750 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 15, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim as to the plaintiffs Rufina Gomez and Martin Gomez with respect to their individual causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sole discretion of the trial court (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Valestil v City of New York, 295 AD2d 619, lv denied 98 NY2d 615; Matter of Hobgood v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 555). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to serve a late notice of claim where the delay was relatively short (17 days), and the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay (see Matter of Bennett v Mele, 295 AD2d 604; Ahferom v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 282 AD2d 343; Weiss v City of New York, 237 AD2d 212; Matter of Isakov v City of New York, 221 AD2d 531).

The defendants’ remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are unpreserved for appellate review (see Zafonte v Steinhammer, 277 AD2d 450; Fleet Bank v Powerhouse Trading Corp., 267 AD2d 276). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 15, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim as to the plaintiffs Rufina Gomez and Martin Gomez with respect to their individual causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sole discretion of the trial court (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Valestil v City of New York, 295 AD2d 619, lv denied 98 NY2d 615; Matter of Hobgood v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 555). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to serve a late notice of claim where the delay was relatively short (17 days), and the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay (see Matter of Bennett v Mele, 295 AD2d 604; Ahferom v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 282 AD2d 343; Weiss v City of New York, 237 AD2d 212; Matter of Isakov v City of New York, 221 AD2d 531).

The defendants’ remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are unpreserved for appellate review (see Zafonte v Steinhammer, 277 AD2d 450; Fleet Bank v Powerhouse Trading Corp., 267 AD2d 276). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 282, 750 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-city-of-white-plains-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack