You are here: / / REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
,

REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Plaintiff student was allegedly injured at school in a collision with another student at recess. The Second Department held that plaintiff (1) did not demonstrate the school’s timely awareness of the negligent supervision allegations (knowledge of plaintiff’s injury not enough), (2) did not present a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely file, and (3) did not demonstrate the school was not prejudiced by the delay (therefore the burden did not shift to the school to demonstrate prejudice):

… [A]s to the issue of substantial prejudice, the petitioners presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that their delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in defending on the merits … . The petitioners contend that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced in its defense because the condition of the accident location has not changed. The condition of the accident location is irrelevant, however, to the petitioners’ claim of negligence—that the appellant was negligent in its supervision of students during a noon recess— and, thus, to the issue of substantial prejudice as well. The petitioners also assert that there were no known witnesses to the incident and, therefore, their delay in filing a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in its ability to investigate. This contention runs counter to the petitioners’ allegation that the incident, a collision between the infant petitioner and another student, occurred during a group activity. Lastly, the petitioners contend that the availability of records as to the infant petitioner’s injuries establishes a lack of substantial prejudice. The medical records, however relevant to the issue of damages, have little, if anything, to do with the appellant’s ability to conduct an investigation as to its liability … . Thus, their availability does not support the petitioners’ argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced. Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to present any evidence or plausible argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced by the delay, the appellant never became required to make “a particularized evidentiary showing” that they were substantially prejudiced … . Matter of A.C. v West Babylon Union Free School Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 01351, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED) /NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT A SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RESPONDENT FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Health Service Provider’s Action to Recoup Overpayment of a Surcharge Subject to Six-Year Statute of Limitations
THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM PROPERLY GRANTED, AN ATTORNEY FROM THE FIRM RETAINED BY PLAINTIFF WORKED ON PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY JOINED THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE TENANT HAD VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE, THE EVICTION PENALTY SHOCKED THE CONSCIENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (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

TRIAL JUDGE’S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF...