Matter of Singh v. City of New York

2018 NY Slip Op 7253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 30, 2018
Docket7526N 101552/16
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 7253 (Matter of Singh 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
Matter of Singh v. City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 7253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Matter of Singh v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 07253)
Matter of Singh v City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 07253
Decided on October 30, 2018
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on October 30, 2018
Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Webber, Moulton, JJ.

7526N 101552/16

[*1] In re Harinder Jeet Singh, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

The City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.


Harinder Jeet Singh, appellant pro se.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, J.), entered June 1, 2017, which denied petitioner's application for leave to file an untimely notice of claim against respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied petitioner's application for leave to file a late notice of claim against respondents the City of New York and The Fire Department, City of New York (collectively the "City") pursuant to General Municipal Law

§ 50-e. While courts should not usually "delve into the merits of an action in determining an application to file a late notice," here, petitioner's common law fraud claim is patently meritless (Weiss v City of New York , 237 AD2d 212, 213 [1st Dept 1997]).

Petitioner sets forth no facts at all alleging that a City employee, either during the November 21, 2015 exam or at any time before the filing of his leave application, told him something that was untrue and that he relied upon that statement to his detriment (see Vermeer Owners v Guterman , 78 NY2d 1114, 1116 [1991]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 30, 2018

CLERK



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

Related

Vermeer Owners, Inc. v. Guterman
585 N.E.2d 377 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Weiss v. City of New York
237 A.D.2d 212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 7253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-singh-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2018.