Friedman v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 226 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Friedman v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 226 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grant v. Nassau County Industrial Development Agency
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The petitioner’s assertion that he was unaware of the notice of claim requirement was not a reasonable excuse for his initial delay in serving a notice of claim upon the respondent (see Matter of Gofman v City of New York, 268 AD2d 588 [2000]; Matter of Hernandez v City of New York, 259 AD2d 751 [1999]; Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead, 226 AD2d 721, 722 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acosta v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Henriques v City of New York, 22 AD3d 847, 848 [2005]…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Molloy v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all of the circumstances, including whether (1) the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Hicks v City of New York, supra at 566-567; Matter of Fierro v Ci…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morales v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality or public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality or public corporation in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Hicks v Cit…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fuentes v. County of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Ctr., 13 AD3d 363 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Westchester, 293 AD2d 748 [2002]; Matter of Fierro v City of New York, 271 AD2d 608, 609 [2000]; Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead, 226 AD2d 721, 722 [1996]; Matter of Matarrese v New York City Health & Hosps.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frith v. New York City Housing Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, a court should consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether an infant is involved, whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the public corporation’s defense on the merits would be substantially prejudiced by the delay (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Cotten v County of Nassau, 307 AD2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cordero v. County of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e, a court should consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether an infant is involved, whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the public corporation’s defense would be substantially prejudiced by the delay (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Brown v County of Westchester, 293 AD2d 748 [2002]; Matt…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cotten v. County of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter o…
discussed Cited "see" Ferruggia v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Warwick
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, the courts have consistently required "proof, in dollars and cents form, of all matters bearing upon the return available under existing zon ing” (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, supra, at 257; see, Matter of DeBeer v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 AD2d 721 ; Matter of Delmarco v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 204 AD2d 447 ).
discussed Cited "see" Dunlea v. Mahopac Central School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Therefore, these documents cannot fairly be said to have apprised the School District of the petitioner’s present claim that school personnel negligently failed to supervise students (see, Doukas v East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 187 AD2d 552 ; see generally, Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead, 226 AD2d 721 ; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ben Zion Friedman
v.
Orange County Board of Elections
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 29, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 721
Published

Appeal by the petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rosato, J.), dated December 19, 1994.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Rosato at the Supreme Court. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.