Hunt v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunt v. City of New Rochelle

223 A.D.2d 643, 637 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 643 (Hunt v. City of New Rochelle) 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

Hunt v. City of New Rochelle, 223 A.D.2d 643, 637 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the City of New Rochelle appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered July 5, 1994, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the application is denied.

The petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for waiting over five months after the expiration of the prescribed 90-day period to commence the instant proceeding against the City of New Rochelle (see, Matter of Stenowich v Colonie Indus. Dev. Agency, 151 AD2d 894). Further, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the City of New Rochelle acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim within the prescribed 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter (see, Matter of Caruso v County of Westchester, 220 AD2d 746). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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 City of New Rochelle appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered July 5, 1994, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the application is denied.

The petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for waiting over five months after the expiration of the prescribed 90-day period to commence the instant proceeding against the City of New Rochelle (see, Matter of Stenowich v Colonie Indus. Dev. Agency, 151 AD2d 894). Further, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the City of New Rochelle acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim within the prescribed 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter (see, Matter of Caruso v County of Westchester, 220 AD2d 746). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 643, 637 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack