Hernaiz v. White Plains Parking Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernaiz v. White Plains Parking Authority

242 A.D.2d 300, 661 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 300 (Hernaiz v. White Plains Parking Authority) 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

Hernaiz v. White Plains Parking Authority, 242 A.D.2d 300, 661 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered May 20, 1996, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the appellant received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim when the claimant filled out an accident report with the appellant’s representatives immediately after the accident and that the appellant suffered no prejudice (see, Walter v State of New York, 235 AD2d 623; Matter of Zimmet v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 187 AD2d 436). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, Fenton v County of Dutchess, 148 AD2d 573). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan Goldstein and Luciano, 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 appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered May 20, 1996, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the appellant received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim when the claimant filled out an accident report with the appellant’s representatives immediately after the accident and that the appellant suffered no prejudice (see, Walter v State of New York, 235 AD2d 623; Matter of Zimmet v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 187 AD2d 436). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, Fenton v County of Dutchess, 148 AD2d 573). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 300, 661 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernaiz-v-white-plains-parking-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack