You are here: / / LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING...
,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted in this gym-class injury case. There was no showing the school was made aware of its potential liability during the 90 days following the injury. Although a medical claim form was filled out and submitted to the school four days after the incident, the description of the incident did not alert the school to potential liability for the fall from gym equipment:

​

Although a medical claim form was prepared and submitted to the School District four days after the accident occurred, it merely indicated that the infant petitioner lacerated his eyebrow and fractured his wrist when he fell after hanging from a pull-up bar during physical education class. Where, as here, “the incident and the injury do not necessarily occur only as the result of fault for which [the School District] may be liable”… , the School District’s “knowledge of the accident and the injury, without more, does not constitute actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim'” … . Rather, “[i]n order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, [a school district] must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim” … . Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the medical claim form did not provide the School District with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the petitioners’ claims that, inter alia, it was negligent in its ownership, operation, management, maintenance, and control of the area where the accident occurred, that it was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of its employees and agents, or that its employees were negligent in supervising the injured petitioner and responding to the accident … .

Furthermore, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the delay in filing the petition … . While the injured petitioner here is an infant, the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and the delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim were not the product of the infant petitioner’s infancy

​

Finally, as 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 School District in defending on the merits … . The assertion contained in the affirmation of the petitioners’ attorney which was submitted in support of their motion, that the School District was not substantially prejudiced by the delay in serving a notice of claim, was conclusory and, without more, inadequate to satisfy the petitioners’ minimal initial burden with respect to this factor … . Matter of D.M. v Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05090, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/

You might also like
A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE LIFT DROPPED ONLY 10 TO 12 INCHES, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION RE THE CHILD’S SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER REUNITING THE CHILD WITH MOTHER WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO NEGLECT OR ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (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

NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED,... THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SUPERVISORS’ FAILURE TO TAKE...