Velaire v. City of Schenectady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velaire v. City of Schenectady

202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3068

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 926 (Velaire v. City of Schenectady) 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

Velaire v. City of Schenectady, 202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered November 25, 1992 in Schenectady County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Not only has petitioner been unsuccessful in providing a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a timely notice of claim, but she has also failed to establish that respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her causes of action within 90 days of their accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter. Moreover, evidence exists that [927]*927the delay in filing the claim may prejudice respondent in maintaining its defense on the merits. Under these circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered November 25, 1992 in Schenectady County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Not only has petitioner been unsuccessful in providing a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a timely notice of claim, but she has also failed to establish that respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her causes of action within 90 days of their accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter. Moreover, evidence exists that [927]*927the delay in filing the claim may prejudice respondent in maintaining its defense on the merits. Under these circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velaire-v-city-of-schenectady-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack