Guastamacchia v. New York City Department of Transportation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guastamacchia v. New York City Department of Transportation

162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7590

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

DecidedJune 18, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 587 (Guastamacchia v. New York City Department of Transportation) 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

Guastamacchia v. New York City Department of Transportation, 162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 11, 1989, which denied her motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim was not made within one year and 90 days after the claim accrued. As a result, the Supreme Court properly concluded that it was without discretion to grant the relief requested (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950; Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 NY2d 256; Binyard v City of New York, 151 AD2d 712). We note, moreover, that the plaintiff’s untimely application cannot be deemed to relate back to a prior motion (see, Matter of Lopez v City of New York, 123 AD2d 765; Thomas v City of New York, 102 AD2d 867; Stoute v City of New York, 91 AD2d 1043, appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 602). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 11, 1989, which denied her motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim was not made within one year and 90 days after the claim accrued. As a result, the Supreme Court properly concluded that it was without discretion to grant the relief requested (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950; Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 NY2d 256; Binyard v City of New York, 151 AD2d 712). We note, moreover, that the plaintiff’s untimely application cannot be deemed to relate back to a prior motion (see, Matter of Lopez v City of New York, 123 AD2d 765; Thomas v City of New York, 102 AD2d 867; Stoute v City of New York, 91 AD2d 1043, appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 602). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guastamacchia-v-new-york-city-department-of-transportation-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack