Innes v. County of Genesee

99 A.D.2d 642, 472 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16876
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 642 (Innes v. County of Genesee) 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
Innes v. County of Genesee, 99 A.D.2d 642, 472 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinions

Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special [643]*643Term abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application to file a late notice of claim. Plaintiff, 19 years of age at the time of the accident, suffered serious injuries and spent five and one-half weeks in the hospital and thereafter was disabled until March 15, 1983, well beyond the 90-day limitation period imposed by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The accident occurred on a public road that is owned by the defendant, Town of Stafford (Town), and had been reconstructed by the defendant, County of Genesee (County). Plaintiff alleged that the accident resulted from the negligent design and maintenance of the road. The accident was investigated by a County deputy sheriff within minutes and his report noted that plaintiff was unable to see the other vehicle because of the contour of the road (see Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga, 64 AD2d 1025, 1026). Thus defendants acquired actual knowledge of all the facts relevant to plaintiff’s claim shortly after the claim arose (see Matter of Somma v City of New York, 81 AD2d 889; Matter of Jakubowicz v Dunkirk Urban Renewal Agency, 75 AD 2d 1019). Defendants have presented no evidence that the condition of the road is any different now than it was at the time of the accident and have failed to establish that they would be prejudiced if plaintiff’s application is granted (see Passalacqua v County of Onondaga, 94 AD2d 949). Therefore, plaintiff’s application to file a late notice of claim should have been granted (see Matter of Bowen v Salamanca Dist. Hasp. Auth., 99 AD2d 658). All concur, except Boomer and Moule, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Antoinette C. v. County of Erie
202 A.D.3d 1464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
BROWN, BOBBIE D. v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Brown v. City of Buffalo
100 A.D.3d 1439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
DeMolfetto v. City of New York
216 A.D.2d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Ford v. City of Syracuse
181 A.D.2d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Rivera v. City of New York
169 A.D.2d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Pierce v. Town of Arkwright
147 A.D.2d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Wencek v. County of Chautauqua
132 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Gerzel v. City of New York
117 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Law v. Rochester City School District
107 A.D.2d 1089 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Caselli v. City of New York
105 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Guthrie Aircraft, Inc. v. Genesee County, NY
597 F. Supp. 1097 (W.D. New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A.D.2d 642, 472 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/innes-v-county-of-genesee-nyappdiv-1984.