172 Cited authorities

Amabile v. City of Buffalo
93 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 746 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding constructive notice insufficient as a matter of law
Kolnacki v. State of New York
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2436 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 553 times
In Kolnacki v State of New York (8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]), the Court of Appeals said, "Lepkowski made clear that all of the requirements in section 11 (b) are 'substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity' (1 NY3d at 207).
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2454 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 446 times 1 Legal Analyses
Denying leave to serve a late Notice of Claim beyond statutory period even where petitioner argued for infancy toll
Felice v. Central School
50 A.D.3d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 350 times
In Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 (2008), the Appellate Division emphasized that a municipality must have acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, not merely knowledge of the incident.
Oboler v. City of New York
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2441 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 279 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Oboler v City of New York (8 NY3d 888), the plaintiff fell after stepping on a depressed manhole cover in the street.
Pierson v. City of New York
56 N.Y.2d 950 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 448 times
Holding that a court may not grant a late notice of claim under the Gen. Mun. Law after the Statute of Limitations has expired
Weiss v. Fote
7 N.Y.2d 579 (N.Y. 1960) Cited 565 times
In Weiss, the New York Court of Appeals found that the City of Buffalo's Board of Safety, having made a reasonable decision with respect to the timing of traffic lights, was not subject to review.
Sheehan v. City of New York
40 N.Y.2d 496 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 339 times
In Sheehan, a bus stopped in a traffic lane rather than by the curb — in violation of regulations — to let passengers on and off. The bus was rear-ended by a sanitation truck, and an injured passenger sued.
Bender v. Health Hosps
38 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 296 times
Holding that estoppel can apply "to notice of claim situations" to bar the defense whenever it is raised, explaining that "[this] equitable bar . . . may arise by virtue of positive acts, or omissions where there was a duty to act"
Alston v. State of New York
97 N.Y.2d 159 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 134 times
Dismissing claim for failure to file within the time limitation of Court of Claims Act § 10

In the Matter of Raymond Newcomb et al., Appellants,v.Middle Country Central School District, Respondent.

172 Cited authorities

Holding constructive notice insufficient as a matter of law

In Kolnacki v State of New York (8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]), the Court of Appeals said, "Lepkowski made clear that all of the requirements in section 11 (b) are 'substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity' (1 NY3d at 207).

Denying leave to serve a late Notice of Claim beyond statutory period even where petitioner argued for infancy toll

In Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 (2008), the Appellate Division emphasized that a municipality must have acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, not merely knowledge of the incident.

In Oboler v City of New York (8 NY3d 888), the plaintiff fell after stepping on a depressed manhole cover in the street.

Holding that a court may not grant a late notice of claim under the Gen. Mun. Law after the Statute of Limitations has expired

In Weiss, the New York Court of Appeals found that the City of Buffalo's Board of Safety, having made a reasonable decision with respect to the timing of traffic lights, was not subject to review.

In Sheehan, a bus stopped in a traffic lane rather than by the curb — in violation of regulations — to let passengers on and off. The bus was rear-ended by a sanitation truck, and an injured passenger sued.

Holding that estoppel can apply "to notice of claim situations" to bar the defense whenever it is raised, explaining that "[this] equitable bar . . . may arise by virtue of positive acts, or omissions where there was a duty to act"

Dismissing claim for failure to file within the time limitation of Court of Claims Act § 10