You are here: / / THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE...
, ,

THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION (SLIP AND FALL) ACCRUED, EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS SERVED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT IS A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of claim served more than 90 after the slip and fall without leave of court was a nullity. The court further determined that the request for an order deeming the notice of claim timely served made more than one year and 90 days after the slip and fall could not be authorized by the court, even where the summons and complaint was served within that time period:

It is well settled that an “application for the extension [of time within which to serve a notice of claim] may be made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute has been tolled” .. . Where that time expires before the application for an extension is made, “the court lack[s] the power to authorize late filing of the notice [of claim]” … .

Here, we conclude that “[p]laintiff’s service of the summons and complaint within the limitations period does not excuse the failure to serve a notice of claim within that period,” and we further conclude that “plaintiff’s earlier service of a notice of claim is a nullity inasmuch as the notice of claim was served more than 90 days after the accident but before leave to serve a late notice of claim was granted” … . Thus, because plaintiff’s cross motion seeking an order deeming her notice of claim to be timely filed “was made after the expiration of the maximum period permitted” for seeking such relief, i.e., one year and 90 days, Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross motion, granted defendant’s motion, and dismissed the complaint … . Bennett v City of Buffalo Parks & Recreation, 2021 NY Slip Op 01920, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

You might also like
SEXUAL ABUSE FINDINGS IN A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR APPLYING THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE IN THIS CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT; HEARSAY ADMITTED IN THE FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CIVIL ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
“GOOD CAUSE” FOR FILING A LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS, NOT IN THE REPLY PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, WAS NOT AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor 7 (“Relationship Between Offender and Victim”)
ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING A VIOLENT COURTROOM SCENE IN A MOVIE TO BE PLAYED FOR THE JURY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD QUOTED DIALOGUE FROM IT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENT ARGUED IT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)

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

EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS OFTEN ABSENT FROM SCHOOL WARRANTED A HEARING ON FATHER’S... THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE IN WHICH DEFENDANT...