You are here: / / Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed
,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed

In affirming the grant of a motion to serve a late notice of claim, the Fourth Department explained the relevant principles:

A notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues, although a court may grant leave extending that time, provided that the application therefor is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations period of one year and 90 days (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]).The decision whether to grant such leave “compels consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,” including the “nonexhaustive list of factors” in section 50-e (5) ….The three main factors are “whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … “[T]he presence or absence of any one of the numerous relevant factors the court must consider is not determinative” …, and “[t]he court is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny the application”… .  Dalton v Akron Central Schools, 408, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

You might also like
Regulation Properly Promulgated—Analytical Criteria Described in Some Depth
JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED.
THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO PENAL LAW 265.09 (2) DID NOT APPLY TO FIVE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; THE APPEAL OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
“Door-Opening Rule” Applied to Allow Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence/Jury-Note Error Not Preserved
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
A DETECTIVE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; TESTIMONY ABOUT THE “BLINDED” PHOTO ARRAY IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED; THE DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A WITNESS’S CRIMINAL HISTORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED; ANY ERRORS DEEMED HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case

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

Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts... “Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes...