Lauray v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lauray v. City of New York

62 A.D.3d 467, 878 N.Y.S.2d 65

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

DecidedMay 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 467 (Lauray 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

Lauray v. City of New York, 62 A.D.3d 467, 878 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 28, 2008, which granted the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim and deemed the notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied.

As petitioner’s counsel concedes, there is no viable cause of action against defendants. The location of petitioner’s alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk was in front of a commercial business and not in front of a one-, two-, or three-family residence (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 [c]). The record further shows that leave to file a late notice of claim was improperly granted. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay, the timely receipt by respondents of actual notice of the defect, and the lack of prejudice (see e.g. Ocasio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Morrisania Neighborhood Family Care Ctr.], 14 AD3d 361 [2005]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 28, 2008, which granted the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim and deemed the notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied.

As petitioner’s counsel concedes, there is no viable cause of action against defendants. The location of petitioner’s alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk was in front of a commercial business and not in front of a one-, two-, or three-family residence (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 [c]). The record further shows that leave to file a late notice of claim was improperly granted. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay, the timely receipt by respondents of actual notice of the defect, and the lack of prejudice (see e.g. Ocasio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Morrisania Neighborhood Family Care Ctr.], 14 AD3d 361 [2005]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 467, 878 N.Y.S.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauray-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack