Hosking v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hosking v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 629, 30 N.Y.S.3d 861

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

DecidedMay 31, 2016

Docket1315N 157081/13

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 629 (Hosking 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

Hosking v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 629, 30 N.Y.S.3d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion to deem her previously served notice of claim timely, nunc pro tunc, or for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent of deeming the previously served notice of claim timely.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion. There is no dispute that the motion for leave *630 was timely made and the lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay or a causative nexus between the delay and plaintiff’s infancy is not fatal (see Matter of Thomas v City of New York, 118 AD3d 537 [1st Dept 2014]; Lisandro v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Metropolitan Hosp. Ctr.], 50 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 715 [2008]).

The record shows that defendants received actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the negligent supervision claim within the 90-day statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter because the February 10, 2004 Occurrence Report was created within five days of the incident, and plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that she and her mother spoke with the principal of the school about the incident on February 9, 2004 (see Alvarez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [North Cent. Bronx Hosp.], 101 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d 776 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Allende v City of New York, 69 AD3d 931 [2d Dept 2010]).

Furthermore, defendants failed to establish that they would be substantially prejudiced if plaintiff’s motion was granted. Defendants have not demonstrated that any necessary witness is unavailable or that they are unable to obtain information from any investigation conducted by the City of New York (see Matter of Kellel B. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 122 AD3d 495, 497 [1st Dept 2014]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717, 719-720 [2d Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion to deem her previously served notice of claim timely, nunc pro tunc, or for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent of deeming the previously served notice of claim timely.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion. There is no dispute that the motion for leave *630 was timely made and the lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay or a causative nexus between the delay and plaintiff’s infancy is not fatal (see Matter of Thomas v City of New York, 118 AD3d 537 [1st Dept 2014]; Lisandro v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Metropolitan Hosp. Ctr.], 50 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 715 [2008]).

The record shows that defendants received actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the negligent supervision claim within the 90-day statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter because the February 10, 2004 Occurrence Report was created within five days of the incident, and plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that she and her mother spoke with the principal of the school about the incident on February 9, 2004 (see Alvarez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [North Cent. Bronx Hosp.], 101 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d 776 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Allende v City of New York, 69 AD3d 931 [2d Dept 2010]).

Furthermore, defendants failed to establish that they would be substantially prejudiced if plaintiff’s motion was granted. Defendants have not demonstrated that any necessary witness is unavailable or that they are unable to obtain information from any investigation conducted by the City of New York (see Matter of Kellel B. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 122 AD3d 495, 497 [1st Dept 2014]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717, 719-720 [2d Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 629, 30 N.Y.S.3d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hosking-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack