Williams v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. City of New York

290 A.D.2d 354, 736 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 354 (Williams 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

Williams v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 354, 736 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 3, 2000, which, upon a grant of renewal, denied petitioner’s motion insofar as it sought leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[355]*355A motion to serve a late notice of claim is appropriately denied where the claim is “patently meritless” (Caldwell v 302 Convent Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 272 AD2d 112, 114). Here, the motion court properly concluded that petitioner’s proposed claim was indeed “patently meritless” in view of the circumstances, namely, that the surface of the basketball court contained an obvious defect (McKey v City of New York, 234 AD2d 114; Green v City of New York, 263 AD2d 385). Petitioner’s belated claim that the crack on which he fell constituted a unique or concealed condition is not supported, and, indeed, is belied by the record.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 3, 2000, which, upon a grant of renewal, denied petitioner’s motion insofar as it sought leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[355]*355A motion to serve a late notice of claim is appropriately denied where the claim is “patently meritless” (Caldwell v 302 Convent Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 272 AD2d 112, 114). Here, the motion court properly concluded that petitioner’s proposed claim was indeed “patently meritless” in view of the circumstances, namely, that the surface of the basketball court contained an obvious defect (McKey v City of New York, 234 AD2d 114; Green v City of New York, 263 AD2d 385). Petitioner’s belated claim that the crack on which he fell constituted a unique or concealed condition is not supported, and, indeed, is belied by the record.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 354, 736 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack