Ragin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ragin v. City of New York

222 A.D.2d 678, 636 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 678 (Ragin 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

Ragin v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 678, 636 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 15, 1993, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s ignorance of the requirement that a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e must be served within 90 days after accrual of the claim is not a legally acceptable excuse (see, Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527; Sellars v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 691). Nor [679]*679is there merit to the petitioner’s argument that actual knowledge of his false arrest claim may be imputed to the City of New York merely because the petitioner’s attorney wrote to the Queens County District Attorney, shortly after the incident occurred, to request dismissal of the charges (see generally, Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 141, affd 78 NY2d 958).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 15, 1993, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s ignorance of the requirement that a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e must be served within 90 days after accrual of the claim is not a legally acceptable excuse (see, Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527; Sellars v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 691). Nor [679]*679is there merit to the petitioner’s argument that actual knowledge of his false arrest claim may be imputed to the City of New York merely because the petitioner’s attorney wrote to the Queens County District Attorney, shortly after the incident occurred, to request dismissal of the charges (see generally, Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 141, affd 78 NY2d 958).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 678, 636 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack