Singletary v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singletary v. City of New York

236 A.D.2d 546, 654 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 546 (Singletary 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

Singletary v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 546, 654 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), [547]*547dated December 22, 1995, which granted the petitioner’s application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner did not move for leave to serve a late notice of claim until 14 months after the date of the accident, which was several months after the City of New York had rejected the notice of claim as untimely. Under the circumstances, this delay would substantially prejudice the City in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see also, Pantelup v City of New York, 176 AD2d 932). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), [547]*547dated December 22, 1995, which granted the petitioner’s application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner did not move for leave to serve a late notice of claim until 14 months after the date of the accident, which was several months after the City of New York had rejected the notice of claim as untimely. Under the circumstances, this delay would substantially prejudice the City in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see also, Pantelup v City of New York, 176 AD2d 932). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 546, 654 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singletary-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack