Rosado v. Trinity Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosado v. Trinity Church

221 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 250 (Rosado v. Trinity Church) 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

Rosado v. Trinity Church, 221 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim, which defendant properly rejected on July 21, 1993 as filed more than 90 days after the alleged accident, failed to provide a detailed description of the defect which allegedly caused her injuries or the specific address of the accident scene, and therefore failed to give defendant sufficient knowledge of the events underlying the claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 253). Moreover, plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for not timely filing the notice of claim or for delaying almost a year after the initial rejection in making this application for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law [251]*251§ 50-e [5]; Matter of Montanez v City of New York, 156 AD2d 185). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Eller in, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim, which defendant properly rejected on July 21, 1993 as filed more than 90 days after the alleged accident, failed to provide a detailed description of the defect which allegedly caused her injuries or the specific address of the accident scene, and therefore failed to give defendant sufficient knowledge of the events underlying the claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 253). Moreover, plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for not timely filing the notice of claim or for delaying almost a year after the initial rejection in making this application for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law [251]*251§ 50-e [5]; Matter of Montanez v City of New York, 156 AD2d 185). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Eller in, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-trinity-church-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack