From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Speciale v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 9, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiffs' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since they failed to set forth an acceptable excuse for the 14-month delay between the date of the accident and the date they made their application (see, Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778; Matter of Dube v. City of New York, 158 A.D.2d 457). In view of the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition and the fact that the accident report was insufficient to put the City on notice of the allegedly defective conditions, the prejudice to the City from the delay is self-evident (see, Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 193 A.D.2d 473; Matter of D'Andrea v. City of Glen Cove Pub. Schools, 143 A.D.2d 747; Matter of Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Speciale v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Speciale v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED SPECIALE et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: May 9, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 179

Citing Cases

Amin v. City of New York

Although the petitioner attempted to explain this lengthy delay by claiming that she was unaware of the fact…

Matter of Konstantinides v. City of New York

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner's application for leave…