You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case against NYC, determined the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was untimely served. Although the notice of claim was served one day after the 90-day deadline, and the city initially notified plaintiff that service was untimely, subsequent communication from the city indicated the claim was being considered:

The plaintiff’s submissions established that although the Comptroller sent the plaintiff a letter dated March 6, 2020, indicating that a notice of claim was not timely filed within 90 days from the date of occurrence, the Comptroller sent the plaintiff another letter, also dated March 6, 2020, acknowledging receipt of the notice of claim, which was assigned a claim number, and stating that “[w]e will do our best to investigate and, if possible, settle your claim.” That letter also stated that “if we are unable to resolve your claim, any lawsuit against the City must be started within one year and ninety days from the date of the occurrence,” without any reference to the claim being untimely … . Further, the plaintiff’s attorney averred that on March 21, 2021, the City sent a letter requesting certain documents from the plaintiff “to evaluate the claim for settlement purposes” and that the plaintiff’s attorney emailed the requested documents the following day. The plaintiff also submitted an email dated March 25, 2021, from Millicent Nicholas-Richards, Negotiation and Settlement Supervisor for the New York City Law Department, acknowledging receipt of the requested documents, and stating that “[w]e are reviewing” and that the plaintiff’s attorney would be contacted if any additional documents were needed. Thus, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants made representations that the plaintiff’s claim was under consideration for settlement and that the plaintiff did not need to take any action other than providing documents “for settlement purposes” or to commence an action against the City within one year and 90 days if a settlement was not possible. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff, who did not move to deem the notice of claim timely served or to extend the time to serve the notice of claim within the one year and 90 day limitations period, was “lulled . . . into sleeping on [his] rights to [his] detriment” … .Guo En Tan v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 04161, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: The notice of claim in this slip and fall action against the city was served one day late. Communications from the city indicated the city was considering the claim. The deadline for making a motion for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim passed. At that point, the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was not timely served as a defense to the action.​.

 

You might also like
THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ON ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
A VIDEO OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEES WAS EITHER NEGLIGENTLY OR WILLFULLY LOST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RULED DEFENDANTS COULD NOT INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN AFFIDAVIT DESCRIBING WHAT THE VIDEO DEPICTED (SECOND DEPT).
ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THE CREDIT CARD BILLING STATEMENTS AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT WERE MAILED TO THE DEFENDANT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ACCOUNT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE TRIPPED ON A TWIG ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH WAS NOT ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED; DEFENDANT, IN HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITIONS OR THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT DRIVER ALLEGED PLAINTIFF DRIVER... HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED...