Rogozinski v. Petronio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogozinski v. Petronio

284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 992 (Rogozinski v. Petronio) 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

Rogozinski v. Petronio, 284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim against the County of Oneida (County). Because plaintiffs motion was filed after expiration of “the time limited for the commencement of an action * * * against [a] public corporation” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]), the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion unless it found that the County “[was] equitably estopped from raising the Statute of Limitations” (Di Geloromo v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 116 AD2d 691; see generally, Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662, 668). “[A] municipality may be estopped from asserting that a claim was untimely filed when its improper conduct induced reliance by a party who changed Ms or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice” (Conquest Cleaning Corp. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 279 AD2d 546, 546-547). Here, plaintiff failed to meet Ms burden of establishing estoppel (see, Park Assocs. v Crescent Park Assocs., 159 AD2d 460, 461) because he failed to establish that he relied on the action or inaction of the County. We therefore reverse the order and deny plaintiffs motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Notice of Claim.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim against the County of Oneida (County). Because plaintiffs motion was filed after expiration of “the time limited for the commencement of an action * * * against [a] public corporation” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]), the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion unless it found that the County “[was] equitably estopped from raising the Statute of Limitations” (Di Geloromo v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 116 AD2d 691; see generally, Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662, 668). “[A] municipality may be estopped from asserting that a claim was untimely filed when its improper conduct induced reliance by a party who changed Ms or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice” (Conquest Cleaning Corp. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 279 AD2d 546, 546-547). Here, plaintiff failed to meet Ms burden of establishing estoppel (see, Park Assocs. v Crescent Park Assocs., 159 AD2d 460, 461) because he failed to establish that he relied on the action or inaction of the County. We therefore reverse the order and deny plaintiffs motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Notice of Claim.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogozinski-v-petronio-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack