You are here: / / Court Has No Authority to Grant Application to File Late Notice of Claim...
,

Court Has No Authority to Grant Application to File Late Notice of Claim After Statute of Limitations Has Expired.

Plaintiff filed a notice of claim and commenced a suit against the City of New York.  The complaint was amended to add the New York City Transit Authority as a defendant.  The First Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the Transit Authority because no notice of claim against the Transit Authority had been filed and the motion to file a late notice of claim was made more than one year and 90 days after the incident. Martinez v City of New York, et al, 9428, 16403/03, First Dept. 3-5-13

 

 

You might also like
HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MADE THE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE CRACKED STEP WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN A UBIQUITOUS “DE MINIMUS” VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOP; HERE THE LICENSE PLATE FRAME OBSCURED “GARDEN STATE” ON THE NEW JERSEY LICENSE PLATE (FIRST DEPT).
THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE WALKWAY BEFORE THE STORM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S TESTIMONY STRAINED CREDULITY, IT WAS NOT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence of Availability of Ladders Insufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff; Plaintiff Fell While Working Standing on Milk Crates
BECAUSE LOOSE PLANKS ON A SCAFFOLD CONSTITUTED A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL AND THE RECALCITRANT WORKER DEFENSE WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Request Court-Permission to Re-Present Charges to a Grand Jury Is... Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation