Crowell v. City of New York

Full title: LYNNE CROWELL, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1996

228 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

644 N.Y.S.2d 231

Opinion

June 20, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.).

Petitioner served a notice of claim on the City two days late, and then waited almost a full year before moving for leave to file the late claim, giving no explanation at all for the delay. The City is prejudiced by weather-related changes in the condition of the allegedly defective sidewalk during the period of delay ( cf., Matter of Sutton v. Town of Schuyler Falls, 185 A.D.2d 430, 431-432), and by its inability to identify and interview witnesses ( see, Aviles v. City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 530, 532, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 813). Denial of the motion to file a late notice of claim in these circumstances was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.