Matter of Spelman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Spelman v. City of New York

126 A.D.3d 624, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2015

Docket14642N 150367/14

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 624 (Matter of Spelman 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 Spelman v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 624, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2014, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s application. While the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay is not, standing alone, fatal to the application (Matter of Porcaro v City of New York, 20 AD3d 357, 358 [1st Dept 2005]), here petitioner did not demonstrate either that respondents received actual knowledge of the facts constituting his claims of negligence and Labor Law violations within the statutory period, or the absence of prejudice resulting from the delay (see Mehra v City of New York, 112 AD3d 417, 417-418 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2014, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s application. While the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay is not, standing alone, fatal to the application (Matter of Porcaro v City of New York, 20 AD3d 357, 358 [1st Dept 2005]), here petitioner did not demonstrate either that respondents received actual knowledge of the facts constituting his claims of negligence and Labor Law violations within the statutory period, or the absence of prejudice resulting from the delay (see Mehra v City of New York, 112 AD3d 417, 417-418 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 624, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-spelman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack