Pope v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pope v. City of New York

282 A.D.2d 236, 722 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372

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

DecidedApril 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 236 (Pope 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

Pope v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 236, 722 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2000, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim upon respondent City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, in seeking permission to file a late notice of claim, failed to meet her burden to establish that her physical incapacitation was of such extent and duration that she was prevented from filing a notice of claim within the 90-day statutory period (see, Matter of Savelli v City of New York, 104 AD2d 943). Petitioner’s vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the accident was witnessed by unspecified City employees are insufficient to establish respondent City’s actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting petitioner’s claim within 90 days of the occurrence or a reasonable time thereafter. We note that petitioner’s knee surgery took place more than 2 months after the 90-day period for service of a notice of claim had expired.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner 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 (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2000, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim upon respondent City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, in seeking permission to file a late notice of claim, failed to meet her burden to establish that her physical incapacitation was of such extent and duration that she was prevented from filing a notice of claim within the 90-day statutory period (see, Matter of Savelli v City of New York, 104 AD2d 943). Petitioner’s vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the accident was witnessed by unspecified City employees are insufficient to establish respondent City’s actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting petitioner’s claim within 90 days of the occurrence or a reasonable time thereafter. We note that petitioner’s knee surgery took place more than 2 months after the 90-day period for service of a notice of claim had expired.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 236, 722 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack