Bussey v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Bussey v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silberman v. City of Long Beach
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Moreover, the petitioner demonstrated that her short delay in serving her original and amended notices of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Billman v Port Jervis School Dist., 84 AD3d 1367, 1369-1370 [2011]; Matter of Ambrico v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., 71 AD3d at 763-764 ; Matter of Ruffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 551-552 [2008]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ambrico v. Lynbrook Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Here, even if the information provided by the petitioners to the appellant’s personnel regarding the incident and the infant petitioner’s injury within 90 days after the incident was insufficient to provide actual knowledge of the facts constituting the negligent supervision claim, the petitioners served their notice of claim and, thus, provided the appellant with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting that claim, within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period (see Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 [2009]; Matter of Gelish v Di…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erichson v. City of Poughkeepsie Police Department
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
In addition, the original notice of claim, which was served only six days beyond the statutory period, was sufficiently particular to apprise the City of the plaintiffs claim of assault within a reasonable time after the claim accrued (see Matter of Gelish v Dix Hills Water Dist., 58 AD3d 841, 842 [2009]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Matter of Fritsch v Westchester County Dept. of Transp., 170 AD2d 602 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gelish v. Dix Hills Water District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Thus, the respondents received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period (see Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Matter of Urgiles v New York City School Constr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trina Bussey
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 22, 2008.
50 A.D.3d 938
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated March 28, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).

[*939] Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The defendant City of New York acquired notice of the essential facts of the subject incident within a reasonable time after the statutory 90-day-period following the accident (see Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 998 [2006]; cf. Matter of National Sur. Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 266 AD2d 550 [1999]). Moreover, the City was not prejudiced by the short delay (see Lossino v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 383 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.