Concourse Nursing Home v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1260 (NY 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Concourse Nursing Home v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1260 (NY 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
92 citation events (92 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" King v. Niagara Falls Water Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
An “fe]rror concerning the identity of the governmental entity to be served” can constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay “provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error” (Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698, 699 [1993]; see Santana v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 2 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 704 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see" KING, GORDON J. v. NIAGARA FALLS WATER AUTHORITY
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
An “[e]rror concerning the identity of the governmental entity to be served” can constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay “provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error” (Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698, 699 ; see Santana v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 2 AD3d 1304, 1305 , lv denied 2 NY3d 704 ).
discussed Cited "see" King v. Niagara Falls Water Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
An “fe]rror concerning the identity of the governmental entity to be served” can constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay “provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error” (Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698, 699 [1993]; see Santana v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 2 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 704 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see" Schoemann v. Adams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiff established that he paid the requisite filing fee and secured “an index number” for the new action (Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327, 331 [1996]; see Chiacchia & Fleming v Guerra, 309 AD2d 1213, 1214 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 704 [2004]; cf. Matter of AHEPA 91 v Town of Lancaster, 258 AD2d 968 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marte v. Graber
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
(See CPLR 304; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327 [1996]; see also Chiacchia & Fleming v Guerra, 309 AD2d 1213 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 704 [2004] [plaintiffs failure to obtain new index number could not be corrected nunc pro tunc because there was no action pending].) Perhaps, had Marte abandoned his initial action, and properly filed a summons and complaint by purchasing a new index number and naming Sandra Graber, the personal representative of Herman Graber, as defendant, the matter before us would not be the nullity it is.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CONCOURSE NURSING HOME
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK
New York Court of Appeals.
May 4, 2004.
812 N.E.2d 1260
Published

Motion for leave to appeal denied.