Tabak v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tabak v. City of New York

167 A.D.2d 547, 562 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 547 (Tabak 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

Tabak v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 547, 562 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[548]*548Since the petitioner never demonstrated that the failure to serve a timely notice of claim was caused by her son’s physical or psychological disability, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her application (see, Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 AD2d 611). Significantly, the proposed notice of claim submitted to the Supreme Court was signed by the son. Further, under the facts of this case, we find that the respondents would be prejudiced if the application were granted. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

[548]*548Since the petitioner never demonstrated that the failure to serve a timely notice of claim was caused by her son’s physical or psychological disability, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her application (see, Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 AD2d 611). Significantly, the proposed notice of claim submitted to the Supreme Court was signed by the son. Further, under the facts of this case, we find that the respondents would be prejudiced if the application were granted. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 547, 562 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabak-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack