Hunte v. New York City Transit Authority

119 A.D.3d 735, 989 N.Y.S.2d 326
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 16, 2014
Docket2013-09149
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 735 (Hunte v. New York City Transit 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
Hunte v. New York City Transit Authority, 119 A.D.3d 735, 989 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J), dated July 25, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action sounding in tort against the *736 New York City Transit Authority (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Public Authorities Law § 1212 [2]; Matter of Ryan v New York City Tr. Auth., 110 AD3d 902 [2013]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 856 [2007]; Small v New York City Tr. Auth., 14 AD3d 690, 691 [2005]). In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether (1) the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Ryan v New York City Tr. Auth., 110 AD3d 902 [2013]; Matter of Abramovitz v City of New York, 99 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2012]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d at 856-857).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim in this action.

Mastro, J.P, Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Woodruff v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 06351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Durand v. MV Transp., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 4458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Molme v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2019 NY Slip Op 7890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Kapitanova v. New York City Tr. Auth.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Konner v. New York City Transit Authority
2016 NY Slip Op 6683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.3d 735, 989 N.Y.S.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunte-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2014.