Isakov v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isakov v. City of New York

221 A.D.2d 531, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 531 (Isakov 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

Isakov v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 531, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 3, 1993, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the application is granted, and the proposed notice of claim dated June 30, 1992, is deemed served.

In view of the minor delay (11 days) and the absence of prejudice to the defendants, the denial of the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Ealey v City of New York, 204 AD2d 720; Matter of D:Anjou v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 196 AD2d 818; Matter of Gandía v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 824). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino 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 petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 3, 1993, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the application is granted, and the proposed notice of claim dated June 30, 1992, is deemed served.

In view of the minor delay (11 days) and the absence of prejudice to the defendants, the denial of the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Ealey v City of New York, 204 AD2d 720; Matter of D:Anjou v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 196 AD2d 818; Matter of Gandía v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 824). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 531, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isakov-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack