Vezza v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vezza v. City of Yonkers

92 A.D.2d 570, 459 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16807

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 570 (Vezza v. City of Yonkers) 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

Vezza v. City of Yonkers, 92 A.D.2d 570, 459 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered January 20, 1982, which granted the application. Order reversed, as a matter of discretion, with $50 costs and disburse[571]*571ments, and application denied. In light of the unexcused over two-year delay in seeking to serve a late notice of claim, the fact that the injured person’s infancy was clearly unrelated to the delay, the justified failure of appellants to investigate the facts underlying the claim, and the failure to provide an affidavit by one having knowledge of the facts, it was an abuse of discretion to allow petitioners to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter ofPersi v Church-ville-Chili Cent. School Dist., 72 AD2d 946, affd 52 NY2d 988). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered January 20, 1982, which granted the application. Order reversed, as a matter of discretion, with $50 costs and disburse[571]*571ments, and application denied. In light of the unexcused over two-year delay in seeking to serve a late notice of claim, the fact that the injured person’s infancy was clearly unrelated to the delay, the justified failure of appellants to investigate the facts underlying the claim, and the failure to provide an affidavit by one having knowledge of the facts, it was an abuse of discretion to allow petitioners to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter ofPersi v Church-ville-Chili Cent. School Dist., 72 AD2d 946, affd 52 NY2d 988). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 570, 459 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vezza-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack