MACIEJEWSKI, ALBERTA v. NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST.
This text of MACIEJEWSKI, ALBERTA v. NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. (MACIEJEWSKI, ALBERTA v. NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST.) 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.
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1319 CA 14-01042 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
IN THE MATTER OF ALBERTA MACIEJEWSKI AND HENRY MACIEJEWSKI, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF SELENA MACIEJEWSKI, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS, CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO, CONGDON, FLAHERTY, O’CALLAGHAN, REID, DONLON, TRAVIS & FISHLINGER, UNIONDALE (CHRISTINE GASSER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
FARRELL & FARRELL, HAMBURG (KENNETH J. FARRELL OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered February 24, 2014. The order granted the application of claimants for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). “[C]laimant[s] made a persuasive showing that [respondent] . . . acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim . . . [and respondent has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” (Matter of Hall v Madison- Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, inasmuch as “actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to respondent[],” claimants’ failure to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay is not fatal to their application (Matter of Drozdzal v Rensselaer City Sch. Dist., 277 AD2d 645, 646; see Hall, 66 AD3d at 1435).
Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MACIEJEWSKI, ALBERTA v. NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maciejewski-alberta-v-north-collins-central-school-nyappdiv-2015.