You are here: / / PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN...
, , ,

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner's request for leave to file a late notice of claim in a potential Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Petitioner was struck by a falling plank when he was standing on a scaffold during renovation work at a school:

Although the petitioner made no attempt to proffer a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice claim, “[n]either the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative”; thus, “[t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the municipal parties acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual, or within a reasonable time thereafter. Notably, the record is devoid of evidence showing that any of the municipal parties was aware, prior to the commencement of this proceeding, that the petitioner's accident had occurred—let alone that the petitioner was claiming violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) … . Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a delay of four months following the expiration of the 90-day notice period does not constitute a “reasonable time” within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) … .

Further, the petitioner failed to present “some evidence or plausible argument” supporting a finding that the municipal parties were not substantially prejudiced by the four-month delay from the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … . Matter of Moroz v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Elements of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge
Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded
THE AVAILABILTY OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE DOES NOT SATISFY A FOIL REQUEST; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE VILLAGE SHOULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES, CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT ALONE.
THE COVID-19 TOLLS AND THE COURT’S DELAY IN SIGNING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROVIDED A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS BUS ACCIDENT CASE; THE POLICE REPORT TIMELY NOTIFIED THE CITY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONER’S WAIVER OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 8 PROCEEDING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER THE RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (THEREBY AFFORDING THE COURT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION) (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied

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

TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A... ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY)...