Trakis v. City of New York

92 A.D.2d 569, 459 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16800
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 569 (Trakis 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
Trakis v. City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 569, 459 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim, claimant James Trakis appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered May 5,1981, as denied the application as to him. By order dated February 16, 1982, this court reversed the order insofar as appealed from, on the law, and granted the application as to claimant James Trakis (Trakis v City of New York, 86 AD2d 868). On June 23, 1982, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the matter to this court for “further consideration on the facts and in the exercise of discretion” (56 NY2d 1018,1019). Upon remittitur, order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and application granted as to claimant James Trakis. The notice of claim verified and served on February 17, 1981, is deemed to have been timely served on behalf of. James Trakis. Upon our review of the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, we conclude that the application made by claimant James Trakis, approximately 10 months after the accident, should have been granted. We particularly note the following: (1) the injured claimant was 86 years old when the accident occurred; (2) his orthopedist deposed that his arteriosclerotic condition substantially impaired his memory; (3) the serious injury (a fractured femur) required substantial hospital and nursing home care, followed by an extensive period at home which he would leave only once a month for treatment; (4) the respondent had actual notice of the accident from the police and emergency clinic reports; and (5) the respondent has not shown substantial prejudice. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wolf v. State
140 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Caselli v. City of New York
105 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.2d 569, 459 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trakis-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1983.