Moody v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moody v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

29 A.D.3d 395, 815 N.Y.S.2d 67

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 395 (Moody v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Moody v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 29 A.D.3d 395, 815 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the infant plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting permission to file a late notice of claim after considering such factors as plaintiffs infancy, whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipal defendant acquired actual knowledge of the pertinent facts constituting the claim, and whether the delay prejudiced defendant’s ability to defend against the claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; [396]*396Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356, 357 [1998]). Under the circumstances, defendant’s possession of the medical records sufficiently constituted actual notice of the pertinent facts, and the claim that the delay would be prejudicial because of the inability to reconstruct events and conversations was insufficient (Matter of McMillan v City of New York, 279 AD2d 280 [2001]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the infant plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting permission to file a late notice of claim after considering such factors as plaintiffs infancy, whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipal defendant acquired actual knowledge of the pertinent facts constituting the claim, and whether the delay prejudiced defendant’s ability to defend against the claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; [396]*396Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356, 357 [1998]). Under the circumstances, defendant’s possession of the medical records sufficiently constituted actual notice of the pertinent facts, and the claim that the delay would be prejudicial because of the inability to reconstruct events and conversations was insufficient (Matter of McMillan v City of New York, 279 AD2d 280 [2001]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 395, 815 N.Y.S.2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack