From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mateo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 4, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.).


Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries suffered when the automobile he was driving, which was traveling the wrong way on 39th Street in Manhattan, was involved in a collision with a bus traveling northbound on 10th Avenue.

Plaintiff failed to provide an adequate excuse for the delay in moving for permission to file a notice of claim some seven months after the date of the accident on which the claim is based. Neither the police report prepared in connection with plaintiff's accident nor the published news reports regarding another accident that took place at or near the same location five months after plaintiff's accident made any mention of the signs or traffic lights at the intersection of 11th Avenue and 39th Street. Those reports could not possibly have served as notice that plaintiff would eventually claim that there was a casual connection between the allegedly negligent placement of those lights and signs and his injuries sustained in the accident at 39th Street and 10th Avenue.

In reference to plaintiff's motion to renew, since plaintiff's initial application for permission to file a late notice of claim was denied without leave to renew, the Statute of Limitations toll that runs from the time a plaintiff seeks leave to serve a late notice of claim until the order granting that relief goes into effect ( see, Giblin v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 61 N.Y.2d 67) was inapplicable to extend his time to move to renew ( see, Matter of Dominguez v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 178 A.D.2d 186). Nor does the motion to renew relate back to the original motion for Statute of Limitations purposes ( supra; Matter of Asaro v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 130, lv dismissed and denied 77 N.Y.2d 956; Matter of Rieara v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Parks Recreation, 156 A.D.2d 206, 207). The application was, therefore, untimely. To the extent that plaintiff's motion was for reargument, we find that the court properly adhered to its initial determination.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

Mateo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Mateo v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JUAN M. MATEO, Appellant v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

Kim v. City of New York

The report, which was prepared 27 days after the accident, and states that petitioner, a student at the…

Joseph v. City of N.Y.

Contrary to respondent's contentions, this Court finds that the police report did apprise the City of the…