You are here: / / PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S...
,

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DeFiore, reversing the appellate division, clarified the procedure for establishing a school district or municipal corporation has been prejudiced by a delay in filing a notice of claim for a tort action. Here a student was injured by a car in the vicinity of the respondent school. The school had been made aware of the location and nature of the accident. After the 90-day notice of claim period had passed, petitioner learned there had been a sign erected by the school that may have had a role in the accident. In denying the motion for leave to file a late notice, Supreme Court placed the burden entirely on the petitioner to demonstrate the school was not prejudiced by the delay. The Court of Appeals clarified the relative burdens of proof on that issue:

We hold that the burden initially rests on the petitioner to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the public corporation. Such a showing need not be extensive, but the petitioner must present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice. * * *

The rule we endorse today — requiring a petitioner to make an initial showing that the public corporation will not be substantially prejudiced and then requiring the public corporation to rebut that showing with particularized evidence — strikes a fair balance. We recognize that a petitioner seeking to excuse the failure to timely comply with the notice requirement should have the initial burden to show that the public corporation will not be substantially prejudiced by the delay. The public corporation, however, is in the best position to know and demonstrate whether it has been substantially prejudiced by the late notice. Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 08581, CtApp 12-22-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)

You might also like
No Private Right of Action Against Bank for Failure to Comply with Exempt Income Protection Act (CPLR Article 52)
THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).
Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP).
Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict
The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing
MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A HOSPITAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEDURE WHEN A PATIENT REQUESTS AN ADMISSION OR RETENTION HEARING (CT APP).

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

UNVERIFIED CELL PHONE SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION IN A SPRINT BUSINESS RECORD WAS... CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE...