Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1972–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bonney v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013Although one of the factors contained in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) is “whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,” the petitioner’s failure to ascertain the County’s ownership of the bus allegedly involved in the accident was due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter (see Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Matter of Nieves v Girimonte, 309 AD2d 753, 754 [2003]; see also Ar 2013Although one of the factors contained in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) is “whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,” the petitioner’s failure to ascertain the County’s ownership of the bus allegedly involved in the accident was due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter (see Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Matter of Nieves v Girimonte, 309 AD2d 753, 754 [2003]; see also Ar | 4 | 4 |
Arias v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2013Auth., 40 AD3d 298, 299 [2007]; Jenkins v New York City Hous. 2013Auth., 40 AD3d 298, 299 [2007]; Jenkins v New York City Hous. | 3 | 3 |
Nieves v. Girimontegreen2 sentences2013Although one of the factors contained in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) is “whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,” the petitioner’s failure to ascertain the County’s ownership of the bus allegedly involved in the accident was due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter (see Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Matter of Nieves v Girimonte, 309 AD2d 753, 754 [2003]; see also Ar 2013Although one of the factors contained in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) is “whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,” the petitioner’s failure to ascertain the County’s ownership of the bus allegedly involved in the accident was due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter (see Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Matter of Nieves v Girimonte, 309 AD2d 753, 754 [2003]; see also Ar | 3 | 3 |
In re the Claim of Cedronegreen2 sentences2013While claimant maintains that, at worst, the alleged conduct constituted an excusable error in judgment, the Board disagreed, noting that claimant had been counseled by the employer prior to this incident “for various safety violations.” Notably, “[a] claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” (Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]), may, as in this instance, be sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Cedrone [Warren County Hea 2013While claimant maintains that, at worst, the alleged conduct constituted an excusable error in judgment, the Board disagreed, noting that claimant had been counseled by the employer prior to this incident “for various safety violations.” Notably, “[a] claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” (Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]), may, as in this instance, be sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Cedrone [Warren County Hea | 2 | 2 |
Devivo v. Town of Carmelgreen2 sentences2011Accordingly, the petitioner’s failure to serve a timely notice of claim on the proper public corporation was not an excusable error (see Matter of Devivo v Town of Carmel, 68 AD3d 991, 992 [2009]; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove, 50 AD3d 1041, 1043 [2008]; Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Jenkins v New York City Hous. 2011Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted is whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter; whether the claimant was an infant, or mentally or physically incapacitated; whether the claimant, in serving a notice of claim, made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted; whether the delay would substantially prejudi | 2 | 2 |
Valila v. Town of Hempsteadgreen2 sentences2017Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Kuterman v City of New York, 121 AD3d 646, 647 [2014]; Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne, 118 AD3d 798, 799 [2014]; Matter of Valila v Town of Hempstead, 107 AD3d 813, 814 [2013]). 2014Even if we were to accept the contention of Aleksandr Kuterman (hereinafter the petitioner) that he committed an excusable error in identifying the municipal agency upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, the petitioner failed to proffer any excuse for the additional delay of more than seven months between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne, 118 AD3d 798 [2014]; Matter of Valila v Town of Hempstead, 107 AD3d at 814 ; Matter of Burgess v County of Suffolk, 56 AD | 1 | 2 |
Murray v. Village of Malvernegreen2 sentences2017Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Kuterman v City of New York, 121 AD3d 646, 647 [2014]; Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne, 118 AD3d 798, 799 [2014]; Matter of Valila v Town of Hempstead, 107 AD3d 813, 814 [2013]). 2014Even if we were to accept the contention of Aleksandr Kuterman (hereinafter the petitioner) that he committed an excusable error in identifying the municipal agency upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, the petitioner failed to proffer any excuse for the additional delay of more than seven months between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne, 118 AD3d 798 [2014]; Matter of Valila v Town of Hempstead, 107 AD3d at 814 ; Matter of Burgess v County of Suffolk, 56 AD | 1 | 2 |
Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2011School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 [2008]). 2010School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 146 [2008]; Hebbard v Carpenter, 37 AD3d 538 [2007]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 5 AD3d 690 [2004]). | 1 | 2 |
Kuterman v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Kuterman v City of New York, 121 AD3d 646, 647 [2014]; Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne, 118 AD3d 798, 799 [2014]; Matter of Valila v Town of Hempstead, 107 AD3d 813, 814 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Centergreen2 sentences2014Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 539 [2006]; Ifejika-Obukwelu v New York City Dept. of Educ., 47 AD3d 447 , 447 [1st Dept 2008]). 2014Ctr. , 6 NY3d 531, 539 [2006]; Ifejika-Obukwelu v New York City Dept of Educ. , 47 AD3d 447 , 447 [1st Dept 2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence2013CPL 710.30 (2) provides for the possibility of late notice, and a belated suppression hearing, when the People show “good cause.” The belated notice and hearing may occur during the trial (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 537 [1985]), and if the trial court thought the People had made an excusable error it might have granted such a remedy here. | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2011Auth., 29 AD3d 319, 320 [2006]; see also Lugo v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Portnov v. City of Glen Covegreen2 sentences2011Accordingly, the petitioner’s failure to serve a timely notice of claim on the proper public corporation was not an excusable error (see Matter of Devivo v Town of Carmel, 68 AD3d 991, 992 [2009]; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove, 50 AD3d 1041, 1043 [2008]; Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Jenkins v New York City Hous. 2011Accordingly, the petitioner’s failure to serve a timely notice of claim on the proper public corporation was not an excusable error (see Matter of Devivo v Town of Carmel, 68 AD3d 991, 992 [2009]; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove, 50 AD3d 1041, 1043 [2008]; Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404, 405-406 [2007]; Jenkins v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Formisano v. Eastchester Union Free School Districtgreen1 sentence2010Factors to be considered in determining if a petitioner should be granted leave to serve a late notice of claim Eire, inter alia, whether the public corporation or its attorney or its insurance carrier acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the time specified in General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) or within a reasonable time thereafter, whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public cor | 1 | 1 |
Suriel v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2003See Gherardi v. City of New York , 294 AD2d 101 (1st Dept 2002) (holding that petitioners "made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted and acted within reasonable time to correct the error...."). 2003See Gherardi v. City of New York , 294 AD2d 101 (1st Dept 2002) (holding that petitioners "made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted and acted within reasonable time to correct the error...."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Claim of Song
green
2 sentences2013While claimant maintains that, at worst, the alleged conduct constituted an excusable error in judgment, the Board disagreed, noting that claimant had been counseled by the employer prior to this incident “for various safety violations.” Notably, “[a] claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” (Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]), may, as in this instance, be sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Cedrone [Warren County Hea 2013While claimant maintains that, at worst, the alleged conduct constituted an excusable error in judgment, the Board disagreed, noting that claimant had been counseled by the employer prior to this incident “for various safety violations.” Notably, “[a] claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” (Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]), may, as in this instance, be sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Cedrone [Warren County Hea | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Pierson v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2006“An application for leave to serve a late notice shall not be denied on the ground that it was made after commencement of an action against the public corporation.” Applying the statutory criteria, the courts have identified the factors to be considered by the court in determining whether or not leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted as including: (1) whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, 1 (2) whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 day 1999The court recognizes the line of cases which stringently applies the statutory rule precluding plaintiff from filing a late notice of claim (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Matter of Zbryski v City of New York, 147 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1989]). | 2 | 1999–2006 |
Placido v. County of Orange
green
2 sentences2025As for the issue of a reasonable excuse for the delay, while one consideration is whether a petitioner " 'made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,' " such an error will not be overlooked when it results from "a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter" ( Matter of Placido v County of Orange , 112 AD3d 722 , 723-724 [2d Dept 2013], quoting General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see Matter of Perez v City of New York , 175 AD3d 1534 , 1536 [2d Dept 2019]). 2025As for the issue of a reasonable excuse for the delay, while one consideration is whether a petitioner " 'made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted,' " such an error will not be overlooked when it results from "a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter" ( Matter of Placido v County of Orange , 112 AD3d 722 , 723-724 [2d Dept 2013], quoting General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see Matter of Perez v City of New York , 175 AD3d 1534 , 1536 [2d Dept 2019]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Dominique R.
green
1 sentence2020The petitioner's error in serving NYCHA at the Comptroller's Office and at an incorrect address was an excusable error since the petitioner's attorney promptly re-served NYCHA at its correct address after discovery of the mistake and followed up by commencing this proceeding ( see Matter of Ruffino v City of New York , 57 AD3d 550, 551 ; Simmons v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hawkins v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Social Services
neutral
1 sentence2020Auth. , 161 AD2d 377 ; Robb v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Friedman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2014A notice of claim served outside the 90-day statutory period is a nullity absent leave of court and has no legal effect (Friedman v City of New York, 19 AD3d 542 [2d Dept 2005]; Mack v City of New York, 265 AD2d 308 [2d Dept 1999]; Kokkinos v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 238 AD2d 550 [2d Dept 1997]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ifejika-Obukwelu v. New York City Department of Education
green
2 sentences2014Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 539 [2006]; Ifejika-Obukwelu v New York City Dept. of Educ., 47 AD3d 447 , 447 [1st Dept 2008]). 2014Ctr. , 6 NY3d 531, 539 [2006]; Ifejika-Obukwelu v New York City Dept of Educ. , 47 AD3d 447 , 447 [1st Dept 2008]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kokkinos v. Dormitory Authority
green
1 sentence2014A notice of claim served outside the 90-day statutory period is a nullity absent leave of court and has no legal effect (Friedman v City of New York, 19 AD3d 542 [2d Dept 2005]; Mack v City of New York, 265 AD2d 308 [2d Dept 1999]; Kokkinos v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 238 AD2d 550 [2d Dept 1997]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mack v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2014A notice of claim served outside the 90-day statutory period is a nullity absent leave of court and has no legal effect (Friedman v City of New York, 19 AD3d 542 [2d Dept 2005]; Mack v City of New York, 265 AD2d 308 [2d Dept 1999]; Kokkinos v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 238 AD2d 550 [2d Dept 1997]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shapiro v. County of Nassau
green
1 sentence2010School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 146 [2008]; Hebbard v Carpenter, 37 AD3d 538 [2007]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 5 AD3d 690 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hebbard v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence2010School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 146 [2008]; Hebbard v Carpenter, 37 AD3d 538 [2007]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 5 AD3d 690 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Medley v. Cichon
green
1 sentence2006Cf. Medley v Cichon, 305 AD2d 643 (2d Dept 2003) (where hospital records indicated, among other things, that infant plaintiff required resuscitation and had an Apgar score of zero, actual knowledge of injury was established). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Funding Corp. v. Planning Board
green
1 sentence1999The court recognizes the line of cases which stringently applies the statutory rule precluding plaintiff from filing a late notice of claim (Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Matter of Zbryski v City of New York, 147 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1989]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Lopez v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1998Auth., 248 AD2d 258 ), rather than any lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Berman v. Hertz Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1996Petitioner argues that SCA acquired actual knowledge of the defective bridge because SCA itself constructed the bridge, that because SCA is "an obscure public authority”, an excusable error concerning the identity of the municipal entity was made (see, Baldeo v City of New York, 127 AD2d 809 [2d Dept 1987]), that notice to the City and to the Board of Education gave notice to SCA of the underlying facts, that a City employee was present at the time of the accident and advised SCA workers of the accident, and that SCA would not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In re the Estate of Rees green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Montalto v. Town of Harrison green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Tatum v. City of New York green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Copeland v. New York City Housing Authority neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Robb v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Tadros v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Morris v. County of Suffolk green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Morris v. County of Suffolk green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Pauletti v. Freeport Union Free School District No. 9 neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| People v. Ruffino green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.