From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hunt v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1996
223 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 22, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the application is denied.

The petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for waiting over five months after the expiration of the prescribed 90-day period to commence the instant proceeding against the City of New Rochelle (see, Matter of Stenowich v Colonie Indus. Dev. Agency, 151 A.D.2d 894). Further, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the City of New Rochelle acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claim within the prescribed 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter (see, Matter of Caruso v County of Westchester, 220 A.D.2d 746). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner's application. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Hunt v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1996
223 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Hunt v. City of New Rochelle

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NATHANIEL HUNT, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 17

Citing Cases

Matter of Przybyszewski v. City of New York

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied. The…

L.K. v. City of N.Y.

Therefore, this affirmation is insufficient to establish the petitioners' condition and petitioners fail to…