Silva v. City of New York

246 A.D.2d 465, 668 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 465 (Silva 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
Silva v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 465, 668 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 12, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the application granted.

This is an application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). On December 28, 1995, petitioner allegedly slipped and fell on a metal plate set in a cracked and broken portion of a Bronx sidewalk. Two weeks later, after experiencing severe pain, he was transported to Lincoln Hospital where he was diagnosed with fractures of his lower back. After a 20-day hospitalization, petitioner undertook a course of physical therapy, and retained counsel only on April 1, 1996, five days after expiration of the statutory 90-day period for filing notice of claim (§ 50-e [1] [a]). Respondents received the required statutory notices on April 5th and 8th, respectively nine and twelve days after the deadline.

In view of the medical and other evidence submitted, we find [466]*466that petitioner’s disabling injury provides a reasonable excuse for the short delay in filing (see, Matter of Annis v New York City Tr. Auth., 108 AD2d 643). Furthermore, any prejudice to respondents was minimal, since the alleged defect was not transitory nor likely to dissipate over the period of delay (cf., Matter of Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 586). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Romero v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Rios v. Montgomery County
872 A.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2005)
Bitetto v. City of Yonkers
13 A.D.3d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Mouzalas v. City of New York
2003 NY Slip Op 51637(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2003)
Ansong v. City of New York
308 A.D.2d 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Dubowy v. City of New York
305 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Heron v. Strader
761 A.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Greene v. Rochester Housing Authority
273 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 465, 668 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silva-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.