You are here: / / INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION...
, , ,

INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant school district should have been denied. Although infancy tolls the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations, it does not toll the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim. The motion for leave to file a late notice was not made until more than four years after the expiration of the 90-day filing period:

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had “acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The school's principal prepared an accident claim form on the day of the accident, and the infant plaintiff's parents completed the medical claim portion of that form a couple of weeks after the accident. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, this form, which merely indicated that the infant plaintiff lost his left front tooth and part of his right front tooth when he hit his mouth on the gymnasium floor in an attempt to “duck from a ball” during physical education class, did not establish that the defendant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims that it was negligent in supervising the students, in failing to provide a safe play area, and in allowing the infant plaintiff to engage in an inappropriate activity … . Accordingly, the defendant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligent supervision and alleged unsafe condition of the gymnasium floor … . Horn v Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 04021, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Waiver of His Right to Appeal, Which Included His Signing a Printed Form Used by Rockland County, Was Invalid
Although the Mortgage Note Was Discharged In Bankruptcy, the Bank Holding the Mortgage Note Had Standing to Bring a Foreclosure Action (In Rem) Seeking the Proceeds of the Foreclosure Sale—The Bank Could Not, However, Seek a Deficiency Judgment (In Personam) Against the Borrower
PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND FAMILY COURT’S FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS AFTER THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES NOTIFIED THE CHILD THAT THE FINDINGS DID NOT ADDRESS THE CHILD’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE MS-13 GANG SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND 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

STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL. ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN...