Johnson v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Town of Hempstead

18 A.D.3d 712, 794 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedMay 23, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 712 (Johnson v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Johnson v. Town of Hempstead, 18 A.D.3d 712, 794 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered October 13, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the County of Nassau. As it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not make her application within one year and 90 days of the accrual of the cause of action, the court had no authority to grant the motion (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Matter of Schmidt v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 253 AD2d 433 [1998]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention and the conclusion of the Supreme Court, there was no evidence that the appellant engaged in any misleading conduct which would support an equitable estoppel (see Matter of Quintero v Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency, 172 AD2d 527 [1991]; Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 AD2d 492, 493 [1990]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Luciano and Lifson, JJ, concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered October 13, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the County of Nassau. As it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not make her application within one year and 90 days of the accrual of the cause of action, the court had no authority to grant the motion (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Matter of Schmidt v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 253 AD2d 433 [1998]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention and the conclusion of the Supreme Court, there was no evidence that the appellant engaged in any misleading conduct which would support an equitable estoppel (see Matter of Quintero v Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency, 172 AD2d 527 [1991]; Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 AD2d 492, 493 [1990]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Luciano and Lifson, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 712, 794 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack