You are here: / / MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION...
, ,

MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants' motion to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted:

“Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim” … . The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable, the State of New York had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . …

The claimants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay of more than one year and eight months in seeking leave to file a late claim. …

“Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish 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 claimants' decedent attributable to malpractice or negligence … . …

The claimants also failed to demonstrate that the defendant had an opportunity to timely investigate the facts underlying the claim, as well as locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts were still fresh … . …

In addition, the claimants failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action based on their allegations of medical malpractice, since they failed to provide an affidavit of merit from a physician … . Decker v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05751, Second Dept 8-15-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, (MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CUSTODY MATTERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, DESPITE A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, ANY CONFLICT IN PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT RENDER IT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS REQUIRED THAT THE COURT GRANT THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
NO-FAULT CARRIER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LETTERS TO DEFENDANT SCHEDULING AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH WERE TIMELY AND PROPERLY MAILED, CARRIER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BUS COMPANY STEMMING FROM A FIGHT INSTIGATED BY A STUDENT ON THE BUS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE... MATTER SENT BACK TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD ABOUT POSSIBLE BRADY MATERIAL THAT...