Hoffman v. Lakeshore Central High School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Lakeshore Central High School

289 A.D.2d 1025, 735 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1025 (Hoffman v. Lakeshore Central High School) 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

Hoffman v. Lakeshore Central High School, 289 A.D.2d 1025, 735 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted claimants’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim against respondents pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (2-a). Decedent, James L. Hoffman, was injured when he fell from a scaffold in the course of his employment with a company retained by respondents to conduct a multimillion dollar renovation of respondent high school. The court properly weighed the factors set forth in Education Law § 3813 (2-a), which are the same as those set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), and did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion (see, Matter of Bowman v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 244 AD2d 638). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Notice of Claim.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted claimants’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim against respondents pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (2-a). Decedent, James L. Hoffman, was injured when he fell from a scaffold in the course of his employment with a company retained by respondents to conduct a multimillion dollar renovation of respondent high school. The court properly weighed the factors set forth in Education Law § 3813 (2-a), which are the same as those set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), and did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion (see, Matter of Bowman v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 244 AD2d 638). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Notice of Claim.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1025, 735 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-lakeshore-central-high-school-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack