You are here: / / Late Notice of Claim Disallowed
,

Late Notice of Claim Disallowed

In finding the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, the Second Department noted that (1) serving the wrong party, i.e., law office failure, was not an acceptable excuse, (2) there was no demonstration by the plaintiffs that the (potential) defendant had actual knowledge of the facts of the claim, and (3) there was no demonstration by the plaintiffs that the (potential) defendant was not prejudiced by the delay in its ability to conduct a thorough investigation.  Peters-Heenpella v Wynn, 2013 NY Slip Op 02233, 2012-02561, Inex No 19749/11, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

​

You might also like
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE TO THIS DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ CRITICISM OF PLAINTIFF DOG-GROOMER POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA (SECOND DEPT).
NASSAU COUNTY SUPREME COURT CANNOT VACATE A DEFAULT ORDER ISSUED BY NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT, DESPITE THE CHANGE OF VENUE FROM NEW YORK COUNTY TO NASSAU COUNTY (SECOND DEPT).
Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting the Ecological Health of a Body of Water Adjacent to Petitioner’s Property.
Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell
MORTGAGE WAS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IT DESCRIBED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY A SINGLE LOT NUMBER AND BY METES AND BOUNDS WHICH ENCOMPASSED TWO LOTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS ELEVATOR-ACCIDENT CASE, THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO A CONDITIONAL JUDGMENT ON CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THE ELEVATOR-MAINTENANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE PRIMARY ACTION IS DETERMINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
The Totality of Circumstances Provided the Police Officer with Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and Thereby Justified Pursuit of the Defendant

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

Late Notice of Claim Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse Detective’s Testimony About Statement Made by Nontestifying Co-Defendant Violated...