Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead

283 A.D.2d 434, 723 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 434 (Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead, 283 A.D.2d 434, 723 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J,), dated July 26, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), a court must consider if there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether [435]*435the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and if the public corporation’s defense would be substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Russo v Monroe-Woodbury Cent. School Dist., 282 AD2d 465; Fierro v City of New York, 271 AD2d 608; Matter of Salter v Housing Auth., 251 AD2d 585). The Supreme Court properly denied the application. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J,), dated July 26, 2000, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), a court must consider if there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether [435]*435the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and if the public corporation’s defense would be substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Russo v Monroe-Woodbury Cent. School Dist., 282 AD2d 465; Fierro v City of New York, 271 AD2d 608; Matter of Salter v Housing Auth., 251 AD2d 585). The Supreme Court properly denied the application. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 434, 723 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandaatselaar-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack