Vincent v. City of New York

7 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. The City of New York

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 51153 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    The presence or absence of any factor is not determinative (see Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d at 460; Etienne v. City of New York, 189 A.D.3d 1400, 1402 [2d Dept 2020])." Vincent v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590 [2d Dept 2022].

  2. Ionescu v. City of New York

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter (see Matter of Lang v County of Nassau, 210 A.D.3d 773, 775). The undated photographs submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition were insufficient to prove that the appellants had actual knowledge of the facts constituting her claim (see Matter of Vincent v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590; Matter of Bermudez v City of New York, 167 A.D.3d 733, 734). The photographs were not authenticated, and the petitioner failed to show that the alleged roadway defect was substantially the same as the condition depicted in the photographs or that the condition remained unchanged since the time of the accident (see Matter of Lang v County of Nassau, 210 A.D.3d at 776; Matter of Shavreshyan v City of New York, 207 A.D.3d 470, 471).

  3. Simpson v. City of New York

    222 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    (1) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining a defense on the merits (see id.; Matter of D'Agostino v. City of New York, 146 A.D.3d 880, 46 N.Y.S.3d 635 ; Hudson v. Patel, 146 A.D.3d 758, 45 N.Y.S.3d 497 ; Kuterman v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 646, 647, 993 N.Y.S.2d 361 ). The presence or absence of any factor is not determinative (seeMatter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 460, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 ; Matter of Sumi v. Village of Stewart Manor, 219 A.D.3d 490, 491, 194 N.Y.S.3d 120 ). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the late service of the notice of claim, which was a nullity, as it was made without leave of court (see Matter of Vincent v. City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590, 173 N.Y.S.3d 595 ; Matter of Ashkenazie v. City of New York, 165 A.D.3d 785, 786, 85 N.Y.S.3d 508 ; Matter of Katsiouras v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 916, 918, 965 N.Y.S.2d 533 ). The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the additional three-month delay in commencing this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Vincent v. City of New York, 208 A.D.3d at 590, 173 N.Y.S.3d 595 ).

  4. Mandelbaum v. City of New York

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4141 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter (see Matter of Vincent v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590; Matter of Suraty v City of New York, 188 A.D.3d 702, 703).

  5. F.Z. v. City of New York

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a), a party seeking to sue a public corporation must serve a notice of claim on the prospective defendant within 90 days after the claim arises (see Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 460; Matter of Vincent v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 589). In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the injured party was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of C.N. v City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 784, 786; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 202 A.D.3d 783, 783).

  6. Myklyn v. Coney Island Hosp.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 33959 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    The presence or absence of any factor is not determinative (see Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d at 460; Etienne v. City of New York, 189 A.D.3d 1400, 1402 [2d Dept 2020])." Vincent v. City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590 [2d Dept 2022], Relevant here, "'[s]ubject to certain tolling provisions, and except in a wrongful death action, a party must seek leave to serve a late notice of claim within one year and 90 days of the accrual date of the claim' (Matter of Johnson v. County of Suffolk, 167 A.D.3d 742, 744 [2018]; see General Municipal Law §§ 50-e [5]; 50-i [1]). 'Where a [party] moves for such relief. . . after the one-year-and-90-day period has expired, the Supreme Court is without authority to grant such relief (Cassidy v. Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist., 128 A.D.3d 996, 997-998 [2015]; see Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950, 954 [1982])."

  7. Rodriguez v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32793 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Etienne v. City of New York, 189 A.D.3d 1400, 1402 (2nd Dept. 2020)." Vincent v. City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 589, 590 (2nd Dept. 2022).