From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avalos v. City of New York Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2009
67 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-10301.

November 4, 2009.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated August 14, 2008, as denied the petition.

Sacco Fillas, LLP, Whitestone, N.Y. (Bret L. Myerson of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider, among other things, whether (1) there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the claim's accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay in serving the notice of claim would result in substantial prejudice to the public corporation defending on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 147-153). Here, the petitioners failed to present a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Tineo v City of New York, 273 AD2d 397; Matter of Jackson v City of New Rochelle, 227 AD2d 483). In addition, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting their claim within 90 days of their claim's accrual or a reasonable time thereafter ( see Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 232 AD2d 558, 559-560). Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the delay in serving the notice of claim would not result in substantial prejudice to the respondent defending on the merits ( id. at 559-560). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim.


Summaries of

Avalos v. City of New York Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2009
67 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Avalos v. City of New York Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LIZ AVALOS et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 4, 2009

Citations

67 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8005
886 N.Y.S.2d 910

Citing Cases

Buchanan v. Beacon

The complaint was filed more than one year and 90 days after those causes of action accrued and thus was…

Outlaw v. City of N.Y.

Conclusions of law: In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must…