21 Cited authorities

  1. Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist.

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8581 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 182 times
    In Newcomb, the Court of Appeals endorsed a new rule establishing a shifting burden of proof in demonstrating that a late notice of claim substantially prejudices a public corporation (see 28 N.Y.3d at 467, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714).
  2. In the Matter of Porcaro v. City of New York

    20 A.D.3d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 73 times
    In Porcaro, we noted that the "petitioner filed his notice of claim within the statutory discretionary period as that period did not begin to run until... diagnosis" (id. at 358).
  3. In re Ansong v. City of N.Y

    308 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 66 times

    1525N September 11, 2003. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which denied petitioner's application to serve and file a late notice of claim nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the application granted. Robert Vilensky, for petitioner-appellant. Fay Ng, for defendant-respondent. Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Marlow, JJ. Petitioner claims that at 5:30 A.M. on July 25

  4. Goodwin v. New York City Housing

    42 A.D.3d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    In Goodwin, the Appellate Division, First Department applied the approach in Miller, stating that a “precise” cause of action was not required to be alleged in the notice of claim, instead of asking whether allegations that “broken/cracked/chipped stairs covered with debris” could have been fairly implied from allegations that a claimant fell while walking down steps.
  5. Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v. St. Div. of Human Rights

    48 N.Y.2d 816 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 92 times

    Argued October 9, 1979 Decided November 20, 1979 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Harry Starr and Ann Thacher Anderson for appellant. Kevin F. McDonough for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board should be reinstated. It remains the law that "the time schedules specified in section 297 (subd. 2; subd 4, pars. a, c) of the Executive Law for the performance

  6. Thomas v. City of N.Y.

    118 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 23 times

    2014-06-17 In re La'Quande THOMAS, etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents. Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondents. MAZZARELLI Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondents. MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ. Order, Supreme Court, New York

  7. Matter of Gerzel v. City of New York

    117 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 65 times
    In Matter of Gerzel v City of New York (117 A.D.2d 549, 551 [1st Dept 1986]), we held that counsel's failure to give a more reasonable explanation for untimely service of a notice of claim "is without significance given the existence of actual notice and the city's failure to show substantial prejudice by the late notice."
  8. Weiss v. City of New York

    237 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 44 times

    March 27, 1997. Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered March 6, 1996, which adhered to a prior ex parte determination denying leave to petitioners to file a late notice of claim, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petitioners' motion for leave to file a late notice of claim is granted nunc pro tunc. Appeal from the order of the same Court and Justice, entered on or about November 29, 1995, which declined to sign the

  9. Ramirez v. City of N.Y.

    148 A.D.3d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 13 times

    2015-07885 03-15-2017 In the Matter of Numan Ramirez, etc., respondent, v. City of New York, et al., appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Fay Ng and Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for appellants. Jaroslawicz & Jaros PLLC, New York, NY (David Tolchin of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed). REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN JEFFREY A. COHEN ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. (Index No. 701165/15) Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Fay Ng and Jonathan

  10. Kerner v. Cnty. of Nassau

    150 A.D.3d 1234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    05-31-2017 In the Matter of Sherman B. KERNER, as administrator of the estate of Oscar Rene Escalante Carpio, also known as Oscar Rene Escalante, appellant, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., respondents. Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale, NY (Evelyn F. Gross of counsel), for appellant. Carnell T. Foskey, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Andrew R. Scott and Nicholas Vevante of counsel), for respondent County of Nassau. Joseph J. Ra, Town Attorney, Hempstead, NY (Cristina M. Giammarino of counsel), for respondent

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation