You are here: / Municipal Law
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion in this ice/snow sidewalk slip and fall action was properly denied. Although the defendants demonstrated they were entitled to NYC’s exemption from liability for owners of one, two and three family residences, they did not demonstrate they did not create the dangerous condition by their snow removal efforts:

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that as owners of a two-family residential property which was owner occupied, they were exempt from liability pursuant to section 7-210(b) of the Administrative Code … . The defendants failed, however, to establish, prima facie, that they did not engage in snow and ice removal work prior to the accident or that their snow and ice removal work did not create or exacerbate the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall … . Ming Hsia v Valle, 2017 NY Slip Op 01193, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (SIDEWALKS, SNOW-ICE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/SIDEWALKS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/SNOW-ICE (SIDEWALKS, NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

,

BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine a basement business office did not deprive defendants of the residential exemption (for one, two and three family residences) from liability for a defective sidewalk:

In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . This liability shifting provision does not, however, apply to “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” … . “The purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were exempt from liability pursuant to the subject code exception. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ partial use of the basement as an office space was merely incidental to their residential use of the property … . [Defendant] Alexander Dembitzer was the director of a summer camp located in upstate New York, and during the off-season, he used the basement to conduct the camp’s business. The defendants did not claim the home office as a tax deduction, their home address was only used to receive the camp’s mail during the off-season, and they did not use the office space with any regularity. Koronkevich v Dembitzer, 2017 NY Slip Op 01187, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/NEGLIGENCE (BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (SIDEWALKS, BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)

,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim was properly granted. The slip and fall allegedly occurred around midnight on March 2/3. The notice of claim was one day late if the incident occurred on March 2 and was timely if it occurred on March 3. The amendment changed the date of the accident stated in the notice from March 2 to March 3:

Here, mere minutes constituted the difference between whether the plaintiff’s fall occurred on March 2, 2012, or March 3, 2012. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the notice of claim and the pleadings to reflect March 3, 2012, as the correct date of the accident. There is no indication that the date originally set forth in the notice of claim as the accident date, March 2, 2012, was set forth in bad faith, the Transit Authority did not demonstrate any actual prejudice as a result of the discrepancy, and the record discloses no basis to presume the existence of prejudice … . Bowers v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01174, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED

,

COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined the county was immune from suit by a student who was assaulted by a worker at a county-owned facility. The worker was referred to the lessee of the premises, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as part of a welfare to work program. NACEC only accepted referrals for persons with no criminal record. The Suffolk County Department of Labor (SWEP) referred the worker despite knowledge of his status as a level three sex offender. The court determined the county was acting in its governmental, not proprietary, capacity when it referred the worker and there was no special relationship between the county and the victim of the assault:

In this case, the specific act or omission that caused plaintiff’s injury was the County’s referral of Smith to NACEC through the County’s SWEP program, a referral made in spite of NACEC’s caveat that it would not accept candidates with a criminal record. The administration of SWEP … was quintessentially a governmental role. The County’s conduct in referring Smith was undertaken solely in connection with its administration of that program and was part of the County’s fundamental governmental activity. Therefore, we hold that the County was acting in its governmental capacity when it referred Smith to NACEC. * * *

There is no view of the evidence that could allow one to conclude that the County voluntarily assumed a special duty to plaintiff. Even if the County promised that it would not refer anyone with a criminal background, that promise would have been made only to NACEC and there is no evidence that plaintiff ever had any knowledge of NACEC’s request. In addition, … it is undisputed that there was no direct contact between plaintiff and the County. Tara N.P. v Western Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-16-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM) 

,

WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined the city’s summary judgment motion was properly granted in this bicycle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when his bicycle struck a pile of gravel near a manhole that was being accessed for sewer maintenance. Because sewer maintenance is a governmental function, the written notice requirement applies. Without written notice of the condition, the city cannot be held liable:

This action seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Daniel Chambers when the front wheel of the bicycle he was riding came into contact with gravel located around a large hole, near a manhole cover. …

The court properly dismissed the action as plaintiff failed to establish that an exception to the prior written notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2) is at issue here … . The City’s ownership of a manhole cover, which allows the City to access the sewer system and water pipes in order to perform maintenance and repairs, does not provide the City with “a special benefit from that property unrelated to the public use” … . Accordingly, it does not fall within the “special use” exception … . Chambers v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01120, 1st Dept 2-10-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)

,

NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the NYC Board of Health properly issued a regulation requiring certain restaurant to provide factual information about the level of sodium in the restaurant food. The decision is comprehensive and cannot fairly be summarized here. Applying the Boreali factors, the First Department held the rule was well within the board’s rule-making authority. In addition, the court found the rule did not violate the First Amendment (commercial speech):

Salt is both an essential ingredient of our diet and, when consumed in excess, a significant health hazard. Excess consumption of sodium, the primary ingredient of salt, can cause high blood pressure, which is in turn correlated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure and kidney disease, according to the overwhelming consensus among scientists and the federal agencies charged with protecting the nation’s health. To address this issue, defendant New York City Board of Health (the Board) adopted a rule requiring certain restaurants to provide factual information to consumers on this issue. That rule is challenged in this appeal by the National Restaurant Association (NRA). We affirm the trial court’s rejection of that challenge, since the Board acted legally, constitutionally and well within its authority in adopting this limited yet salutary rule. National Rest. Assn. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene. 2017 NY Slip Op 01140, 1st Dept 2-10-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD)/SODIUM (NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD)/RESTAURANTS (NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY ISSUED REGULATION REQUIRING CERTAIN RESTAURANTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SODIUM IN THE RESTAURANT FOOD)

,

THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR NYC PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that the various record-keeping and inspection statutes and regulations which apply to New York City pawnbrokers did not violate the unreasonable search and seizure prohibition in Article I, section 12 of the New York State Constitution. Therefore, the preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statutes, regulations and procedures should not have been granted:

Here, the statutory and regulatory framework at issue consists of two distinct components: not merely inspection requirements involving targeted, on-premises administrative inspections by government officials, but also substantial reporting requirements, involving submission of transactional information to the government.

To the extent the statutory and regulatory framework involves transactional reporting requirements, it does not involve either physical inspections or administrative searches of a business or its records; instead, it merely requires the submission of information in which the businesses have little, if any, expectation of privacy. * * *

Even if we focus on those provisions that authorize inspections, and characterize them as administrative searches, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood that they will prevail. The Court of Appeals … acknowledged the continued viability of an “administrative search” exception to the constitutional requirements of probable cause and warrants. While that exception “cannot be invoked where … the [administrative] search is undertaken solely to uncover evidence of criminality’ and the underlying regulatory scheme is in reality, designed simply to give the police an expedient means of enforcing penal sanctions'” … , a regulatory administrative search scheme can pass muster under New York’s Constitution where it is “pervasive and include[s] detailed standards in such matters as, for example, the operation of the business and the condition of the premises” … . Collateral Loanbrokers Assn. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00953, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION)/CONSITUTIONAL LAW (NYS) (PAWNBROKERS, NYC, THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION)/PAWNBROKERS (NYC) (THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION)/ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES (NYC) (PAWNBROKERS, THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PAWNBROKERS, NYC, THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION)

, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s notice of claim in this medical malpractice action was timely served as a matter of law under the continuous treatment doctrine. Two justices, in a concurring decision, agreed that the action should not have been dismissed, but argued there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied:

On January 25, 2006, plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant HHC. At the 50-h hearing in June 2006, plaintiff testified that while her last actual medical treatment at Lincoln Hospital occurred on October 19, 2005, when hospital personnel removed the sutures from her leg, she received a follow-up appointment to return to Lincoln Hospital on October 24, 2005. Plaintiff stated that she arrived at Lincoln Hospital for treatment on that date, but was informed that the staff could not locate her medical records and that she should return to the Hospital in one week, on October 31, 2005. Plaintiff testified that she did, in fact, return on October 31, only to have the staff inform her that they did not accept her insurance and that she should seek treatment elsewhere.

… [P]laintiff argued, her last treatment date was October 31, 2005 and thus, she had timely served her notice of claim on January 25, 2006. Hill v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00914, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)

,

PETITIONER DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT WAS VALID.

The Fourth Department determined the petitioner (city) did not overcome the presumption that the respondent’s (town’s) real property tax assessment was valid. The city owned a drinking water reservoir and dam area in the town. The city failed to produce an appraisal to challenge the town’s assessment. Therefore, the town was not required to come forward with any proof to support the assessment:

It is the rule in an RPTL article 7 proceeding that the “locality’s tax assessment is presumptively valid,” but that “[the] petitioner may overcome that presumption by bringing forth substantial evidence that its property has been overvalued” … . “In the context of a proceeding to challenge a tax assessment, substantial evidence will often consist of a detailed, competent appraisal based on standard, accepted appraisal techniques and prepared by a qualified appraiser” … . Until the presumption of the validity of the assessment is overcome, there is no obligation on the part of the assessor to come forward with proof of correctness of the assessment … . Only if the petitioner rebuts the presumption of validity must the court then examine and “weigh the entire record, including evidence of claimed deficiencies in the assessment, to determine whether petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that its property has been overvalued” … . …

Here, the record contains no competent appraisal evidence by which the court plausibly might have determined that the fair value of the parcel was, on each of the taxable dates in question, $11.45 million. Given that lack of proof of valuation, it must be concluded that petitioner failed to carry its evidentiary burden in challenging its tax assessment … . Matter of City of Rome v Board of Assessors, 2017 NY Slip Op 00864, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PETITIONER DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT WAS VALID)/MUNCIPAL LAW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, CITY DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TOWN’S REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT WAS VALID)

,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted claimants leave to file a late notice of claim against the water authority which allegedly created a depression in the roadway (the cause of the injury). Claimants had filed a timely notice of claim against the city and only later learned the water authority was the general contractor:

An “[e]rror concerning the identity of the governmental entity to be served” can constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay “provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error” … . …

Here, claimants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay inasmuch as they served a timely notice of claim upon the City, and then promptly applied for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents after discovering respondents’ alleged involvement in causing claimant’s injuries … . Furthermore, although respondents lacked actual knowledge of claimant’s injuries, respondents have ” made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [them] substantial prejudice’ ” … . Indeed, we note that the Water Board was the general contractor for the construction project that allegedly created the defect in the roadway, and thus respondents’ ability to investigate the facts underlying the claim is furthered by their possession of documents and other information related to the construction project. King v Niagara Falls Water Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 00855, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE 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