Gillum v. Cnty. of Nassau, 284 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Gillum v. Cnty. of Nassau, 284 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrews v. Long Island Railroad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that the delay of 10 months after the accident in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the Village did not substantially prejudice the Village’s ability to maintain a defense on the merits (see Matter of Iacone v Town of Hempstead, 82 AD3d at 889 ; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533, 534 [2001]; Kravitz v County of Rockland, 112 AD2d 352, 353 [1985]; cf. Fenton v County of Dutchess, 148 AD2d 573 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrews v. Long Island Railroad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that the delay of 10 months after the accident in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the Village did not substantially prejudice the Village’s ability to maintain a defense on the merits (see Matter of Iacone v Town of Hempstead, 82 AD3d at 889 ; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533, 534 [2001]; Kravitz v County of Rockland, 112 AD2d 352, 353 [1985]; cf. Fenton v County of Dutchess, 148 AD2d 573 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iacone v. Town of Hempstead
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The petitioners’ delay prevented the appellant from conducting a timely investigation into whether the alleged dangerous condition was a cause of the accident and from interviewing potential witnesses while their recollections were fresh (see Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533, 534 [2001]; Kravitz v County of Rockland, 112 AD2d at 353 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Groves v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the appellants would be prejudiced in their defense by the approximately six-month delay between the time the claim arose and the time the petitioner commenced the proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Clark v City of New York, 292 AD2d 605, 606 [2002]; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533, 534 [2001]; Matter of Resto v City of New York, 240 AD2d 499, 501 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Paulette Gillum
v.
County of Nassau, and Town of Hempstead
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 25, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 533
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the County of Nassau appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered June 7, 2000, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s application which was for leave to serve upon it a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the petitioner’s application which was for leave to serve upon the appellant a late notice of claim is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the petitioner’s application which was for leave to serve upon the appellant a late notice of claim one year after the accident. Even accepting the petitioner’s assertion that she was incapacitated due to her injuries, she failed to offer any excuse for the five-month delay after she obtained counsel (see, Matter of McAllister v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 670).

Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that the appellant had received actual notice within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter (see, DeAngelis v Board of Educ., 281 AD2d 448). The police accident report did not provide the appellant with notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim (see, Matter of Dominguez v City of New York, 272 AD2d 326).

The petitioner contends that her delay in serving the notice of claim did not prejudice the appellant, as it had actual notice of-the alleged improper road design and inadequate traffic control devices at the location of the accident. However, she failed to establish that prior accidents occurred at that loca[*534] tion, or that complaints from the community before her accident placed the appellant on notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Moreover, the petitioner’s delay prevented the appellant from conducting a timely investigation into whether the alleged dangerous condition was a cause of the accident, and from interviewing potential witnesses, including a witness identified in the police accident report, while their recollections were fresh (see, Matter of DeMolfetto v City of New York, 216 AD2d 295; Morano v County of Dutchess, 160 AD2d 690). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.