Hernandez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. City of New York

259 A.D.2d 751, 687 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3161

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 751 (Hernandez 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

Hernandez v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 751, 687 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated December 22, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s contention that he was unaware of the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see, Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead, 226 AD2d 721). The petitioner also failed to prove that the respondent, City of New York, acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90-day period prescribed by statute or within a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see, Kalenda v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 937). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated December 22, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s contention that he was unaware of the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see, Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead, 226 AD2d 721). The petitioner also failed to prove that the respondent, City of New York, acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90-day period prescribed by statute or within a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see, Kalenda v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 937). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 751, 687 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack