Gilliam v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Gilliam v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Joseph v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 2012-12-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Finally, the petitioner did not meet her burden of rebutting the appellants’ assertions that the delay of more than two years in commencing this proceeding will substantially prejudice their ability to investigate the facts, and to locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts are still fresh (see Matter of Formisano v Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 59 AD3d 543, 545 [2009]; Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d at 1106 ; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Finally, the petitioner did not meet her burden of rebutting the appellants’ assertions that the delay of more than two years in commencing this proceeding will substantially prejudice their ability to investigate the facts, and to locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts are still fresh (see Matter of Formisano v Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 59 AD3d 543, 545 [2009]; Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d at 1106 ; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Werner v. Nyack Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
In addition, the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Formisano v Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 59 AD3d 543, 544 [2009]; Matter of Grande v City of New York, 48 AD3d 565, 566 [2008]; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]; Matter ofDiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366, 367 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Catuosco v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 149-150 [2008]; Matter of Grande v City of New York, 48 AD3d 565, 566 [2008]; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366, 367 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Astree v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 260 AD2d 462, 463 [1999]; Matter of Gilliam v City of New York, 250 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]), since the NYCTA was prevented from engaging in a prompt investigation (see Gilliam v City of New York, supra).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Thomas Gilliam
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 11, 1998.
250 A.D.2d 680
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 31, 1997, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s application. for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner has failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim. Ignorance of the statutory requirements for serving a timely notice of claim constitutes an unacceptable excuse (see, Alper v City of New York, 228 AD2d 390; Matter of Dancy v Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 AD2d 413, 414; Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527, 528).

The petitioner stated in the petition that he returned to the site of the alleged accident six days after its occurence, took photographs of the damaged pole, brought the photographs to the police station, and met with a police officer to fill out reports. This demonstrated that the petitioner was not suffering from any physical disability which would have prevented him from consulting with an attorney in a timely fashion.

There is no evidence supporting the petitioner’s contention that the City received actual notice of the claim within the[*681] requisite 90-day time period. The mere completion of an incident information slip and a police accident report within the police precinct does not constitute notice to the City of an impending claim since the reports did not connect the petitioner’s injuries to any negligence on the part of the City (see, Deegan v City of New York, 227 AD2d 620; see also, Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545; Ribeiro v Town of N. Hempstead, 200 AD2d 730; Matter of Serrano v New York City Hous. Auth., 197 AD2d 694, 697; Siena v Marlboro Houses, 188 AD2d 534, 535).

In addition, the City of New York would be prejudiced if this application were granted and a notice of claim permitted to be served almost nine months after the claim arose. The City has been denied the opportunity to investigate the facts and defend itself on the merits as well as to locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts were still fresh (see, Steiger v Board of Educ., 192 AD2d 517; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 AD2d 922). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur