Pelella v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pelella v. City of New York

215 A.D.2d 207, 626 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5011

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 207 (Pelella 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

Pelella v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 207, 626 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 24, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s excuse for not timely serving a notice of claim, that he did not receive the police accident report indicating that the offending vehicle was owned by respondents until more than three months after the accident, does not explain why the police accident report should have been unavailable to petitioner at the time of its preparation at the place of the accident and was properly rejected by the IAS Court on that ground. We also agree with the IAS Court that actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim cannot in this case be imputed to respondents from the police accident report (Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251), and that the delay has prejudiced respondents in their ability to prepare a defense. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 24, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s excuse for not timely serving a notice of claim, that he did not receive the police accident report indicating that the offending vehicle was owned by respondents until more than three months after the accident, does not explain why the police accident report should have been unavailable to petitioner at the time of its preparation at the place of the accident and was properly rejected by the IAS Court on that ground. We also agree with the IAS Court that actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim cannot in this case be imputed to respondents from the police accident report (Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251), and that the delay has prejudiced respondents in their ability to prepare a defense. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 207, 626 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelella-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack