Sorrentino v. Wild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sorrentino v. Wild

209 A.D.2d 507, 619 N.Y.S.2d 612

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 507 (Sorrentino v. Wild) 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

Sorrentino v. Wild, 209 A.D.2d 507, 619 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the Town of Hempstead pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated February 3, 1993, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the court placed undue emphasis upon the absence of a nexus between the plaintiff’s infancy and the delay in serving a notice of claim (see, Matter of Kurz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 174 AD2d 671), we nevertheless find that, under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the Town of Hempstead pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated February 3, 1993, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the court placed undue emphasis upon the absence of a nexus between the plaintiff’s infancy and the delay in serving a notice of claim (see, Matter of Kurz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 174 AD2d 671), we nevertheless find that, under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 507, 619 N.Y.S.2d 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrentino-v-wild-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack