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
Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER ALLEGED DEBRIS ON STAIRS IN DEFENDANT’S HOME CAUSED HIM TO FALL WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE; THE DEBRIS DID NOT VIOLATE THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SO THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD A MORTGAGE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN LOST; AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT IS AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADMISSIBLE FORM (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...