You are here: / / LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL...
,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING.

The Second Department determined a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation for conscious pain and suffering was properly denied. The court determined the hospital was not timely put on notice of the claim simply by its possession of the decedent’s hospital records:

​

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering within the requisite 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter by virtue of its possession of hospital records relating to the decedent’s death … . A medical provider’s mere possession or creation of medical records does not establish that it had “actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on” the claimant … . Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the lengthy delay in filing the petition … . Even assuming that the petitioner met its initial burden to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the respondent, and that the respondent failed to make “a particularized evidentiary showing that [it] will be substantially prejudiced if the late notice is allowed” in response … , upon consideration of the balance of the relevant factors (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to serve a late notice of claim with respect to the cause of action alleging conscious pain and suffering … . Matter of Rosenblatt v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03004. 1st Dept 4-19-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)

You might also like
THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS OFFERED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR THE RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE NINE MONTH DELAY BEFORE THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT REPORT WAS CREATED BY THE POLICE ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER DEFENSES TO AN ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHETHER THE ACTION WOULD SURVIVE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT BEFORE THE COURT.
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN SEPARATION AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY.
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (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

BED OF A PICKUP TRUCK IS A PROPER PLATFORM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL... WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DOCTOR WHO OVER-PRESCRIBED DRUGS TO PERSONS WHO...