Krohn v. Berne-Knox-Westerlo Central School District

168 A.D.2d 826, 563 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15495
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 826 (Krohn v. Berne-Knox-Westerlo Central School District) 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
Krohn v. Berne-Knox-Westerlo Central School District, 168 A.D.2d 826, 563 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered November 13, 1989 in Montgomery County, which granted petitioners’ application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

On May 27, 1988, petitioner Thomas D. Krohn was injured when the vehicle he was riding in was involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by respondent Berne-Knox-Westerlo Central School District and operated by its employee. On August 25, 1988, just prior to expiration of the one-year and 90-day Statute of Limitations (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]), petitioners made this application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Supreme Court granted the application and the school district appeals.

We affirm. It is our view that Supreme Court acted within its discretion in granting the application. The record establishes that the school district’s vehicle was damaged in the accident and, in fact, towed from the scene, that a police accident report was prepared, and that the school district and, assumedly, its insurance carrier had immediate notice of the accident and an adequate opportunity to investigate it. Moreover, there is no indication that the school district has been prejudiced by the late filing of the notice of claim. Under the [827]*827circumstances of this case, petitioners’ failure to allege a reasonable excuse for the delay is not fatal (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Fast v County of Broome, 151 AD2d 930, 931; Matter of Zbryski v City of New York, 147 AD2d 705, 706, lv dismissed, and lv denied 74 NY2d 825).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Welch v. Board of Education
287 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Claim of Harwood v. County of Albany
257 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Murray v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
208 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Meredithe C. v. Carmel Central School District
192 A.D.2d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Esposito v. Carmel Central School District
187 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
McAdams v. Police Department of Clarkstown
184 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Ireland v. Hinkle
178 A.D.2d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 826, 563 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krohn-v-berne-knox-westerlo-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1990.