Walker v. New York City Transit Authority

266 A.D.2d 54, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11608
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 54 (Walker v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Walker v. New York City Transit Authority, 266 A.D.2d 54, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner fails to sustain her burden of establishing that [55]*55respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the occurrence or a reasonable time thereafter, offering only a conclusory allegation that respondents’ employee prepared a report describing the manner in which the claim arose (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 NY2d 881), and a police “aided” report that does not connect the occurrence with any negligence by respondents (see, Matthews v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 669, 670). Nor does petitioner rebut respondents’ showing of prejudice attributable to the 14 months that passed between the occurrence and petitioner’s application for leave and the resulting loss of opportunity to locate and examine personnel or other possible witnesses while their memories of the occurrence were still fresh (see, Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681). We note that there is no reliable support for petitioner’s claim, made for the first time on appeal, that she reasonably relied on settlement offers made by respondents’ personnel at the scene, and that no other excuses are offered by petitioner for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Arauz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
101 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Nacipucha v. City of New York
18 Misc. 3d 846 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Perez v. Empire Bus Co.
13 Misc. 3d 535 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Micali v. Union Free Valley Stream School District 24
300 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sargent v. New York City Housing Authority
287 A.D.2d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Acosta v. City of New York
283 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 54, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.