Matter of Goldberg
v.
County of Suffolk

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentMay 13, 1996
227 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
227 A.D.2d 482642 N.Y.S.2d 928

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 7 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

May 13, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The respondent did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioners' claim until approximately 8 1/2 months after the accident is alleged to have occurred ( see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 A.D.2d 730). Notice to the State-employed court officers was not notice to the County ( see, Matter of Vitali v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 636; Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 A.D.2d 730, supra; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251; Matter of Perry v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioners made an excusable error in initially identifying the State of New York as the proper party, the petitioners failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a notice of claim against the County of Suffolk for almost one and one-half months after notice of this initial error ( see, Matter of Morris v. County of Suffolk, 88 A.D.2d 956). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.