You are here: / / REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
,

REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Plaintiff student was allegedly injured at school in a collision with another student at recess. The Second Department held that plaintiff (1) did not demonstrate the school’s timely awareness of the negligent supervision allegations (knowledge of plaintiff’s injury not enough), (2) did not present a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely file, and (3) did not demonstrate the school was not prejudiced by the delay (therefore the burden did not shift to the school to demonstrate prejudice):

… [A]s to the issue of substantial prejudice, the petitioners presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that their delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in defending on the merits … . The petitioners contend that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced in its defense because the condition of the accident location has not changed. The condition of the accident location is irrelevant, however, to the petitioners’ claim of negligence—that the appellant was negligent in its supervision of students during a noon recess— and, thus, to the issue of substantial prejudice as well. The petitioners also assert that there were no known witnesses to the incident and, therefore, their delay in filing a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in its ability to investigate. This contention runs counter to the petitioners’ allegation that the incident, a collision between the infant petitioner and another student, occurred during a group activity. Lastly, the petitioners contend that the availability of records as to the infant petitioner’s injuries establishes a lack of substantial prejudice. The medical records, however relevant to the issue of damages, have little, if anything, to do with the appellant’s ability to conduct an investigation as to its liability … . Thus, their availability does not support the petitioners’ argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced. Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to present any evidence or plausible argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced by the delay, the appellant never became required to make “a particularized evidentiary showing” that they were substantially prejudiced … . Matter of A.C. v West Babylon Union Free School Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 01351, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED) /NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FOOT UNDER A TIRE-WHEEL STOP IN A PARKING LOT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE WHEEL STOP WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE’S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom
Because the “Identity” of the Perpetrator Was Not an Issue, Allowing Evidence of Prior Crimes to Prove Identity Was Reversible Error.
Original Grantor Has the Power to Remove Restrictive Covenants from a Deed/Land Conveyed for Public Use Which Is Subject to a Condition Subsequent (Here a Reversionary Interest in the Deed) Is Not Covered by the Public Trust Doctrine (Legislative Approval for Conveyance for Private Use Not Required)
Duty to Defend Versus Duty to Indemnify—Question of Fact About Whether Intentional Conduct Policy Exclusion Applies

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TRIAL JUDGE’S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF...