Speciale v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Speciale v. City of New York

204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 430 (Speciale 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

Speciale v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 1, 1992, which denied their application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since they failed to set forth an acceptable excuse for the 14-month delay between the date of the accident and the date they made their application (see, Carbone v Town of Brook-haven, 176 AD2d 778; Matter of Dube v City of New York, 158 AD2d 457). In view of the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition and the fact that the accident report was insufficient to put the City on notice of the allegedly defective conditions, the prejudice to the City from the delay is self-evident (see, Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 193 AD2d 473; Matter of D'Andrea v City of Glen Cove Pub. Schools, 143 AD2d 747; Matter of Mallory v City of New York, 135 AD2d 636). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 1, 1992, which denied their application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since they failed to set forth an acceptable excuse for the 14-month delay between the date of the accident and the date they made their application (see, Carbone v Town of Brook-haven, 176 AD2d 778; Matter of Dube v City of New York, 158 AD2d 457). In view of the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition and the fact that the accident report was insufficient to put the City on notice of the allegedly defective conditions, the prejudice to the City from the delay is self-evident (see, Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 193 AD2d 473; Matter of D'Andrea v City of Glen Cove Pub. Schools, 143 AD2d 747; Matter of Mallory v City of New York, 135 AD2d 636). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speciale-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack