13 Cited authorities

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

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8581 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 195 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. 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.
  3. Harris v. City of New York

    297 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 56 times
    Holding lack of notice and the passage of time will prejudice city because it won't be able to find witnesses or conduct a proper investigation
  4. Chattergoon v. New York City Housing Auth

    161 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 82 times
    In Chattergoon, the court held that the NYCHA police investigation of the underlying stabbing murder, while sufficing to impart notice of the occurrence, did not suffice to impart notice of the petitioner's negligence claim against NYCHA (Id. at 142).
  5. 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."
  6. Thomas v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

    132 A.D.3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 10 times

    12407N 311416/11 10-08-2015 Calvin E. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. New York City Housing Authority, Defendant-Respondent. Burns & Harris, New York (Blake G. Goldfarb of counsel), for appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent. Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. Burns & Harris, New York (Blake G. Goldfarb of counsel), for appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J

  7. Gaudio v. City of New York

    235 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 28 times

    January 9, 1997. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered on or about November 15, 1995, which denied petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Before: Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ. Petitioner's ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim ( Turkenitz v City of New York, 213 AD2d 266), and the excuse that he did

  8. Caridi v. Convention

    47 A.D.3d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 13 times

    January 24, 2008. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 3, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Buckley, JJ. The court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in allowing petitioner to file a late notice of claim more than seven months after expiration of the 90-day filing requirement ( see General Municipal

  9. Matter of Embery v. City of New York

    250 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 18 times

    May 4, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The determination of whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Carty v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 592; Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702; Ortega v. New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 337). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying

  10. New York Tele. Co. v. Travelers Casualty

    280 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    In New York Telephone Company v Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (280 AD2d 268 [1st Dept 2001]), the Court again held that the insured's forwarding of the complaint in the underlying personal injury action to the insurer was sufficient notice to the insurer of possible claims against the additional insureds.