Moore v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. City of New York

194 A.D.2d 501, 599 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6792

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

DecidedJune 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 501 (Moore 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

Moore v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 501, 599 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered on or about April 3, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim, nunc pro tunc, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for legal insufficiency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of a showing that the delay in serving the notice of claim has prejudiced the defendant public corpora[502]*502tion in maintaining a defense on the merits, and in light of the initial confusion concerning the identity of the officers who obtained and exercised the warrant, the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion, notwithstanding the absence of a specific finding validating the reasonableness of plaintiff’s excuse (see, Matter of Toro v New York City Hous. Auth., 182 AD2d 358). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered on or about April 3, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim, nunc pro tunc, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for legal insufficiency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of a showing that the delay in serving the notice of claim has prejudiced the defendant public corpora[502]*502tion in maintaining a defense on the merits, and in light of the initial confusion concerning the identity of the officers who obtained and exercised the warrant, the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion, notwithstanding the absence of a specific finding validating the reasonableness of plaintiff’s excuse (see, Matter of Toro v New York City Hous. Auth., 182 AD2d 358). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 501, 599 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack