From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudloff v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 02-02202

March 21, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Siracuse, J.), entered November 27, 2001, which denied claimants' application to serve a late notice of claim.

PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (KRISTOPHER A. SCHWARZMUELLER Of Counsel), For Claimants-appellants.

LAW OFFICES OF F. ROBERT MICHEL, ROCHESTER (F. ROBERT MICHEL Of Counsel), For Defendant-respondent.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., SCUDDER, KEHOE, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs and the application is granted upon condition that claimants shall serve the proposed notice of claim within 20 days of the date of entry of the order of this Court.

Memorandum:

On May 17, 2001, claimant Robert F. Rudloff was working as a carpenter on a bridge owned by respondent, City of Rochester, when he slipped off a flat piece of steel that protruded from a concrete wall of the bridge and fell four to five feet, sustaining injuries to his left knee. On August 24, 2001, claimants contacted an attorney to represent them in an action against respondent and, on August 27, 2001, their attorney sought leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Supreme Court denied claimants' application, and this appeal ensued. Because the period of delay is relatively short and respondent has failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by reason of the delay (see generally Salvaggio v. Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 203 A.D.2d 938), we exercise our discretion to grant claimants' application upon condition that claimants shall serve the proposed notice of claim within 20 days of the date of entry of the order of this Court.


Summaries of

Rudloff v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Rudloff v. City of Rochester

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF ROBERT F. RUDLOFF AND MARY E. RUDLOFF, Claimants-appellants v…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

Dusch v. Erie Cnty. Med. Ctr. & Erie Cnty. Med. Ctr. Corp.

We also conclude that claimant met his initial burden of showing that the late notice would not substantially…

Arnold v. Town of Camillus

Based on the foregoing, we modify the order in the exercise of our discretion by granting plaintiff leave to…