You are here: / / LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS...
,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this student bullying and harassment case was properly granted. The plaintiff alleged the school was negligent in failing to prevent or stop the bullying:

… [T]he infant petitioner submitted evidence showing that she made persistent complaints over a period of years to district employees that she had been verbally and physically harassed by a certain group of fellow students, and that the abuse continued despite the school district's intermittent corrective actions. Contrary to the school district's contentions, the infant petitioner demonstrated that the district had actual notice of more than just the discrete incidents to which it responded; it had notice of the alleged pattern of abuse. Under the circumstances presented here, the infant petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the district had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter … , and that the district was not substantially prejudiced by the delay in serving the notice of claim … . …

The school district's contention that it would be prejudiced by the delay because two of the petitioner's three prior guidance counselors no longer work at the school was not sufficient to meet its burden of making a “particularized showing” of prejudice in maintaining a defense on the merits… .. Given the petitioner's infancy, the school district's actual notice, and the absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of C.B. v Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05761, Second Dept 8-15-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/BULLYING (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE ALLEGED FRAUD WHICH INDUCED HIM TO SIGN RELEASES; THEREFORE THIS FRUAD-BASED ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT IN A DARK AREA OF DEFENDANT NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S (NYCHA’S) APARTMENT COMPLEX; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLEGED THE LACK OF LIGHTING CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENT SECURITY; THE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY-RELATED NEGLIGENCE IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN... POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE...