You are here: / / APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED,...

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s (petitioner’s) application to serve late notices of claim should have been granted. The court provided a clear explanation of the analytical criteria:

The key factors in determining whether to allow service of a late notice of claim are whether (1) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense … . The presence or absence of any one of these factors is not necessarily determinative … , and the absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal … . “However, whether the public corporation acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is seen as a factor which should be accorded great weight” … .

Here, the County acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims … . Matter of City of New York v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 00465, 2ne Dept 1-25-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS MAKING COURT-REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED TO THE BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF A LOST NOTE AND COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE ARM AND FOOT PEDAL OF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE AT DEFENDANT’S GYM BROKE OFF; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT.
THE BURGLARY COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS ARMED WITH A “KNIFE” WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A “DEADLY WEAPON;” THE ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COUNT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED; THE SANDOVAL RULING WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (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

APPELLATE COURT NEED NOT REVIEW ISSUES NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IN THE APPENDIX; COUPLING... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER...