Jagacki v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jagacki v. Board of Education

34 A.D.2d 957, 312 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641

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

DecidedJune 1, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 957 (Jagacki v. Board of Education) 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

Jagacki v. Board of Education, 34 A.D.2d 957, 312 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, ÍKings County, dated April 2, 1969, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied. Whether or not the initial failure to file a notice of claim within the prescribed 90-day period is legally attributable to the infant respondent’s disabiltiy, it is apparent upon this record that the application for leave to file a late claim was not, as a matter of law, made “ within a reasonable time after the expiration of the * * *. [said 90-day period] ” (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5). There appears to have been an unexplained subsequent delay of at least three months between retention of counsel for purposes of applying for such leave and actual application to the court (cf. Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 802, affd. 304 N. Y. 628). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, 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 notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, ÍKings County, dated April 2, 1969, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied. Whether or not the initial failure to file a notice of claim within the prescribed 90-day period is legally attributable to the infant respondent’s disabiltiy, it is apparent upon this record that the application for leave to file a late claim was not, as a matter of law, made “ within a reasonable time after the expiration of the * * *. [said 90-day period] ” (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5). There appears to have been an unexplained subsequent delay of at least three months between retention of counsel for purposes of applying for such leave and actual application to the court (cf. Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 802, affd. 304 N. Y. 628). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 957, 312 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jagacki-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack