Reisner v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reisner v. County of Nassau

36 A.D.3d 822, 826 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 822 (Reisner v. County of Nassau) 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

Reisner v. County of Nassau, 36 A.D.3d 822, 826 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered October 4, 2005, which denied the petition.

[823]*823Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner failed to establish that he had a reasonable excuse for much of his almost nine-month delay in serving the notice of claim (see Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596, 597 [1996]). Moreover, the record does not support the petitioner’s contention that the County of Nassau had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying his claim within 90 days of the accident and therefore would not be substantially prejudiced in preparing a defense if the application were granted (see Matter of Cattell v Town of Brookhaven, 21 AD3d 896 [2005]; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition. Miller, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered October 4, 2005, which denied the petition.

[823]*823Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner failed to establish that he had a reasonable excuse for much of his almost nine-month delay in serving the notice of claim (see Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596, 597 [1996]). Moreover, the record does not support the petitioner’s contention that the County of Nassau had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying his claim within 90 days of the accident and therefore would not be substantially prejudiced in preparing a defense if the application were granted (see Matter of Cattell v Town of Brookhaven, 21 AD3d 896 [2005]; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition. Miller, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 822, 826 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reisner-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack