Erichson v. City of Poughkeepsie Police Dep't, 66 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Erichson v. City of Poughkeepsie Police Dep't, 66 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jaffier v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Dist., 28 NY3d 455 [2016]). “[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” (Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Mitchell v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Power Auth., 133 AD3d 667 [2d Dept 2015]; Erickson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 [2009]). *942 The petitioner alleges that on June 12, 2013, she was arrested by three New York City police officers, based on false accusations made by her infant son’s father, the respondent Tyrone Brodie, who is also a New York City police officer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gentile v. Westchester Medical Center
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“A court, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances presented to it, has the discretion to extend the time to serve a notice of claim” (Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 [2009]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Canty v City of New York, 273 AD2d 467, 467 [2000]; Matter of Battle v City of New York, 261 AD2d 614 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nurse v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In light of the fact that the Department of Education had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim and will not be substantially prejudiced by the delay, the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d at 778 ; Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821-822 [2009]).
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 "see" Matter of Romero v. County of Suffolk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
Matter of Snyder v County of Suffolk , 116 AD3d 1052, 1053 ), "the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where there was actual notice and absence of prejudice" ( Matter of Regan v City of New York , 131 AD3d at 1066 ; see Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept. , 66 AD3d at 821-822 ; Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead , 52 AD3d 507, 510 ; Gibbs v City of New York , 22 AD3d 717, 720 ; cf. Matter of Hampson v Connetquot Cent.
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Ruiz v. City of New York (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Indeed, this Court has recognized that leave to serve a late notice of claim asserting false arrest and false imprisonment causes of action may be granted where, inter alia, "members of the New York City Police Department participated in the acts giving rise to the petitioner's false arrest and imprisonment claims" ( McKenna v City of New York , 154 AD2d 655, 656 ; see Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept. , 66 AD3d 820, 821 ; Matter of Ragland v New York City Hous.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William R. Erichson
v.
City of Poughkeepsie Police Department
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 20, 2009.
66 A.D.3d 820
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for assault, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated October 6, 2008, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim is granted.

[*821] A court, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances presented to it, has the discretion to extend the time to serve a notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Battle v City of New York, 261 AD2d 614, 615 [1999]). A factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the public corporation acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 509 [2008]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 147 [2008]; Matter of Dell'Italia v Long Is. R.R. Corp., 31 AD3d 758, 759 [2006]; Matter of Battle v City of New York, 261 AD2d at 615).

Here, the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department (hereinafter the City) had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the plaintiff s claim, as its own employees engaged in the conduct which gave rise to the claim (see Picciano v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 290 AD2d 164, 174 [2001]; Matter of Ragland v New York City Hous. Auth., 201 AD2d 7, 11 [1994]; Tatum v City of New York, 161 AD2d 580, 581 [1990]; McKenna v City of New York, 154 AD2d 655 [1989]). 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]). Since the City acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts of the claim, the plaintiff met his initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the City’s ability to maintain a defense on the claim (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152; Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658, 660 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717, 720 [2005]). In opposition, the City failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 510 [2008]; Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658, 660 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720) or that the plaintiffs underlying claim was patently without merit (see Matter of Leeds v Port Washington Union Free School Dist., 55 AD3d 734 [2008]; Matter of Chambers v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 50 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2008]).

Finally, where there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d at 510; Matter of Rivera[*822] Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.