You are here: / / A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT...
,

A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim. Petitioner alleged she fell and was injured while riding a bus owned by the county. A county police report was made about the incident. The Second Department held that the fact that the county was aware of the accident does not demonstrate the county was aware of the essential facts constituting the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, [the] court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim”… . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance”… . “The determination of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the respondents received timely, actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim by reason of a police accident report filled out by an officer who responded to the scene of the petitioner’s accident. “Generally, knowledge of a police officer or of a police department cannot be considered actual knowledge of the public corporation itself regarding the essential facts of a claim” … . The fact that the Nassau County Police Department had actual knowledge of the accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the respondents … . Matter of Cruz v Transdev Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02463, Second Dept 4-11-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained
Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s Notification of His Insurer of the Settlement Offer—Although Insurer Sent a Letter Responding to the Notification, It Was Sent to the Wrong Address and the Insured Never Received It
Petitioners, Who Did Not Represent a Majority of the Elected Board of Directors, Did Not Have Standing the Seek Dissolution of the Corporation Under Business Corporation Law 1102/Criteria for Common-Law Dissolution Not Met
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE WITNESSED FOUR-YEAR-OLD’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, INFANT PLAINTIFF SAID SHE WAS INJURED ON AN INFLATABLE SLIDE (SECOND DEPT).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.
No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S... THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT...