Roman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. City of New York

254 A.D.2d 292, 678 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10036

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 292 (Roman 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

Roman v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 292, 678 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General [293]*293Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Shapiro v Town of Clarkstown, 238 AD2d 498), The record indicates that the respondents had no prior knowledge of many of the claims interposed. Moreover, the petitioner’s excuses for failing to serve a timely notice of claim were supported only by conclusory allegations (see, Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General [293]*293Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Shapiro v Town of Clarkstown, 238 AD2d 498), The record indicates that the respondents had no prior knowledge of many of the claims interposed. Moreover, the petitioner’s excuses for failing to serve a timely notice of claim were supported only by conclusory allegations (see, Matter of Finneran v City of New York, 228 AD2d 596). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 292, 678 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack