From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thom v. Village of Wappingers Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1987
131 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

June 29, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the application is denied.

The claimant, who offered virtually no excuse for the delay in filing notices of claim, asserts only the existence of a "distinct possibility" that one or more of the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the accident within 90 days of its occurrence, which knowledge each of the appellants denies. Moreover, because the accident occurred at an active construction site, reconstruction of the circumstances existing at the time of the accident is all but impossible (see, Kravitz v County of Rockland, 112 A.D.2d 352, affd 67 N.Y.2d 685). Under the totality of the circumstances, the court of first instance abused its discretion in granting the application. Eiber, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thom v. Village of Wappingers Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1987
131 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Thom v. Village of Wappingers Falls

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN C. THOM, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF WAPPINGERS FALLS…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Ribeiro v. Town of North Hempstead

Finally, there is no question that the appellants were prejudiced by the plaintiffs' delay in seeking leave…

Matter of Grant v. Town of North Hempstead

The Court finds that respondents would face substantial prejudice if petitioner was permitted to file a late…