Luciano v. Gallagher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luciano v. Gallagher

290 A.D.2d 557, 736 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 557 (Luciano v. Gallagher) 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

Luciano v. Gallagher, 290 A.D.2d 557, 736 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, John Gallagher, as Police Commissioner of the County of Suffolk, and the County of Suffolk appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated April 30, 2001, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Major v County of Nassau, 256 AD2d 344; Matter of Singh v City Univ. of N.Y./Bronx Community Coll., 223 AD2d 545, 546). Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see, Matter of Beary v City of Rye, 44 NY2d 398, 412), as well as considering all other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, John Gallagher, as Police Commissioner of the County of Suffolk, and the County of Suffolk appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated April 30, 2001, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Major v County of Nassau, 256 AD2d 344; Matter of Singh v City Univ. of N.Y./Bronx Community Coll., 223 AD2d 545, 546). Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see, Matter of Beary v City of Rye, 44 NY2d 398, 412), as well as considering all other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 557, 736 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luciano-v-gallagher-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack