In re Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Martin

100 A.D.2d 879, 473 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17997

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

DecidedApril 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 879 (In re Martin) 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

In re Martin, 100 A.D.2d 879, 473 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a late notice of claim, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated February 8, 1983, which denied her application. 11 Order affirmed, with costs. 11 In this case, petitioner has neither demonstrated any reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim nor shown that the respondent had knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim. Rather, it appears that petitioner unfortunately decided too late to seek legal assistance with a view toward bringing a claim against the City of New York. “Were we to find the delay here excusable, precious little of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law would survive in this department” (Matter of Morris v County of Suffolk, 88 AD2d 956, 957). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a late notice of claim, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated February 8, 1983, which denied her application. 11 Order affirmed, with costs. 11 In this case, petitioner has neither demonstrated any reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim nor shown that the respondent had knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim. Rather, it appears that petitioner unfortunately decided too late to seek legal assistance with a view toward bringing a claim against the City of New York. “Were we to find the delay here excusable, precious little of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law would survive in this department” (Matter of Morris v County of Suffolk, 88 AD2d 956, 957). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 879, 473 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-martin-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack