Rodriguez v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. New York City Board of Education

190 A.D.2d 579, 593 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1472

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 11, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 27, 1992 and April 16, 1992, which, respectively, denied the petitioner’s motions for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and for leave to renew and reargue its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petitioner slipped from a chair while working at P.S. 32 in the Bronx on January 3, 1991. The petitioner completed a Comprehensive Accident Report and an Employee’s Notice of Injury Report that day. On July 8, 1991, the petitioner filed a notice of claim, which the respondent disallowed as untimely. The IAS Court thereafter denied the petitioner’s motion to file a late notice of claim. We agree.

While General Municipal Law § 50-e and Education Law § 3813 permit, on a proper showing, the filing of a late notice of claim, petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay, and also failed to show that respondent had actual notice of the facts surrounding the accident, in particular the basis of the claim of negligence against it (see, Matter of Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 586). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 27, 1992 and April 16, 1992, which, respectively, denied the petitioner’s motions for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and for leave to renew and reargue its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petitioner slipped from a chair while working at P.S. 32 in the Bronx on January 3, 1991. The petitioner completed a Comprehensive Accident Report and an Employee’s Notice of Injury Report that day. On July 8, 1991, the petitioner filed a notice of claim, which the respondent disallowed as untimely. The IAS Court thereafter denied the petitioner’s motion to file a late notice of claim. We agree.

While General Municipal Law § 50-e and Education Law § 3813 permit, on a proper showing, the filing of a late notice of claim, petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay, and also failed to show that respondent had actual notice of the facts surrounding the accident, in particular the basis of the claim of negligence against it (see, Matter of Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 586). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Rodriguez v. New York City Board of Education, 190 A.D.2d 579, 593 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 579 (Rodriguez v. New York City Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related