timely notice claim in New York

2020Ctr. , 6 NY3d 531 , 535; J.B. v Singh , 172 AD3d 1291 , 1292; Matter of R.N. v Village of New Sq. , 164 AD3d at 509).

2015In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether (1) the school district or its attorney or insurance carrier acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the injured party was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (4) the school

2016Thus, claimant’s affidavit, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see id. at 150-151 ).

2016Thus, claimant’s affidavit, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see id. at 150-151 ).

2023Likewise, the petitioner's attestation that she moved apartments on or around the 32nd day of the 90-day period to serve a timely notice of claim also does not support her contention that she was preoccupied to such an extent that she could not comply with the statutory requirement ( see Matter of Klass v City of New York , 103 AD3d 800, 801 ; Matter of Taylor v County of Suffolk , 90 AD3d 769, 770 ).

2014Here, Zachary and his mother did not proffer sufficient proof to establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon the appellant (see Matter of Klass v City of New York, 103 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; Matter of Taylor v County of Suffolk, 90 AD3d 769, 770 [2011]; Matter of Aliberti v City of Yonkers, 302 AD2d 456 [2003]).

2018In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court must consider whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the claimant's infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim, (3) the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (4) the public corporation was prejudiced by the delay in i

2018Finally, the petitioners [*2]again failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see generally Bazile v City of New York , 94 AD3d 929 ).

2018In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits ( see Matter

2017“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, a court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim” (Matter of Weaver v Ci

2013The relevant factors for the court to consider include whether (1) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Henriques v City of New York, 22 AD3d 847, 848 [2005]; Christoforatos v City of New York, 285 AD2d 622 [2001]; Matter of Land

2013The relevant factors for the court to consider include whether (1) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Henriques v City of New York, 22 AD3d 847, 848 [2005]; Christoforatos v City of New York, 285 AD2d 622 [2001]; Matter of Land

2020A timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the City of New York ( see Administrative Code § 7-201; see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 60 NY2d 539, 547 ).

2014In general, the service of a timely notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1) is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or proceeding against a school district, and failure to comply with this requirement is a fatal defect (see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547 [1983]; Matter of Smith v Brenner, 106 AD3d 1018, 1018 [2013]; Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 57 AD3d 929, 929 [2008]; Munro v Ossining Union Free School *1112 Dist., 55 AD3d 697, 698 [2008]; Power Cooling, Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 48 AD3d 5

2025To the extent that petitioner argues that she had a reasonable excuse based on her hospitalization and rehabilitation, or from the attack of sciatica, petitioner submits no medical evidence to support her assertion that she was so incapacitated that she was unable to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Bell v City of New York, 100 AD3d 990, 990 [2d Dept 2012]).

2024To be clear, petitioner does not contend that she could not have complied with the statutory requirement to serve a timely notice of claim due to her alleged injuries, and petitioner submits no medical evidence (see Matter of Bell v City of New York, 100 AD3d 990 , 990 [2d Dept 2012]).

2019A lack of due diligence in determining the identity of the owner of the property upon which the subject accident occurred is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Kelly v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1388, 1389 ; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove , 50 AD3d 1041, 1043 ).

2017The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Maggio v City of New York, 137 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2016]; Matter of Bell v City of New York, 100 AD3d 990 [2012]; Matter of Wright v City of New York, 99 AD3d 717, 718 [2012]; Matter of Valentine v City of New York, 72 AD3d 981, 982 [2010]; Matter of Portnov v City of Glen Cove, 50 AD3d 1041, 1042-1043 [2008]).

2025"In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits" ( Lobos v

2025"In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits" ( Matter o

2010In exercising its discretion to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the Supreme Court must consider various factors, including whether (1) the claimant is an infant, (2) the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Gonzalez v City

2010In exercising its discretion to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider various factors, including whether (1) the claimant is an infant, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in defending on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Contreras v KBM Realty Corp., 66 AD3d 627 [20

2025The court also considers other relevant facts and circumstances, particularly whether "the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality or public corporation in its defense" and whether the petitioner "demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim" ( Ibrahim v New York City Tr. [*2]Auth., 202 AD3d 786, 787 [2d Dept 2022]).

2025The court also considers other relevant facts and circumstances, particularly whether "the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality or public corporation in its defense" and whether the petitioner "demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim" ( Ibrahim v New York City Tr. [*2]Auth., 202 AD3d 786, 787 [2d Dept 2022]).

2019Henry Brown failed to proffer any excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Wilson v City of New York , 160 AD3d 970 , 971; Matter of D'Agostino v City of New York , 146 AD3d 880, 882 ; Troy v Town of Hyde Park , 63 AD3d 913, 914 ).

2018Furthermore, the petitioner failed to proffer any excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of D'Agostino v City of New York, 146 AD3d 880, 882 ; Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 101 AD3d 721 ; Troy v Town of Hyde Park, 63 AD3d 913, 914 ).

2026However, as the majority acknowledges, that rule is subject to an exception and a municipality that acts wrongfully or negligently is estopped from invoking the failure to file a timely notice of claim as a defense against the claim ( see id. at 6-7, citing Bender , 38 NY2d at 665-668 ).

2026However, as the majority acknowledges, that rule is subject to an exception and a municipality that acts wrongfully or negligently is estopped from invoking the failure to file a timely notice of claim as a defense against the claim ( see id. at 6-7, citing Bender , 38 NY2d at 665-668).

2025"In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim . . . , the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits" ( Matter of Vincent v City of New York , 208 AD3d at 589-590 [int

2025Dist. , 28 NY3d 455, 460 ). "'In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defe

2024A petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is "not necessarily fatal" to an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim ( Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk , 167 AD3d 742 , 745 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[W]here there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 ).

2024A petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is "not necessarily fatal" to an application for leave to serve late notice ( Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk , 167 AD3d 742 , 745 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[W]here there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 ).

2019Here, the plaintiff demonstrated that the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claim by way of the timely notice of claim served upon it by the plaintiff in one of the related actions ( see Matter of Tejada v City of New York , 161 AD3d 876 , 877; Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 1025, 1026 ; Jordan v City of New York , 41 AD3d 658, 660 ).

2018A petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors ( see Matter of Davis v County of Westchester , 78 AD3d 698, 699 ; Matter of Kumar v City of New York , 52 AD3d 517, 518 ; Jordan v City of New York , 41 AD3d 658, 660 ).

2019Additional factors in determining whether to grant such an extension include whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and whether the municipality was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Naar v City of New York , 161 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Maldonado v City of New York , 152 AD3d 522 ; Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ. , 71 AD3d 776 ).

2019Additional factors in determining whether to grant such an extension include whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and whether the municipality was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Naar v City of New York , 161 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Maldonado v City of New York , 152 AD3d 522 ; Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ. , 71 AD3d 776 ).

2015Here, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claim and not merely some general knowledge that a wrong had been committed (see Brandi v City of New York, 90 AD3d 751 [2011]; Matter of Zaid v City of New York, 87 AD3d 661, 663 [2011]; Matter of Iacone v Town of Hempstead, 82 AD3d at 889 ; Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d at 1038 ). *669 Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon the respondent.

2014In determining whether to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc or to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the key factors that the court must consider are whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation, (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and (4) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the fail

2025Even had the request to serve a late notice of claim been timely, “the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits” (Destine v City of New York, 111 AD3d 629 [2d Dept 2013]).

2022The petitioner also failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Matter of Nunez v Village of Rockville Ctr. , 176 AD3d 1211 , 1214; Matter of Snyder v County of Suffolk , 116 AD3d at 1053 ; Matter of Destine v City of New York , 111 AD3d 629, 629 ), or sustain her initial burden of presenting some evidence or plausible argument to support a finding that the County would not be substantially prejudiced by the filing of a late notice of claim ( see Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent.

2017The fact that the petitioner allegedly was unaware of the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) or that the DSNY is a public corporation are not reasonable excuses for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Bhargava v City of New *523 York, 130 AD3d 819 [2015]; Matter of Flores v County of Nassau, 8 AD3d 377, 378 [2004]; Figueroa v City of New York, 92 AD2d 908, 909 [1983]).

2015The petitioner’s assertions that she mistakenly believed that another law firm which allegedly employed an unspecified investigator with whom she had spoken a few days after the accident was representing her and that she did not know that she had to serve a notice of claim upon the City were insufficient to excuse the failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Bruzzese v City of New York, 34 AD3d 577, 578 [2006]; Matter of Flores v County of Nassau, 8 AD3d 377 [2004]; Matter of Pico v City of New York, 8 AD3d 287 [2004]).

2007Erior to commencing this action to recover damages for medi cal malpractice, the plaintiffs neither served a timely notice of claim upon the defendants, as required by statute, nor sought leave, within the relevant one-year-and-90-day limitations period, to serve a late notice of claim (see McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7401 [2]; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e [5]; 50-i; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Urena v New York City Health & Hosps.

2006“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

2022However, a court, in its discretion, may extend the time for a petitioner to serve a notice of claim ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). "'In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim . . . [the] court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a re

2021"In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, [the] court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim" [*2]( Matter of We

2019Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the subsequent delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, (2) the municipal corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay in seeking leave would substantially prejudic

2018Additional factors in determining whether to grant such an extension include whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, and whether the public corporation was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Maldonado v City of New York , 152 AD3d 522, 522 ; Matter of Murray v Village of Malverne , 118 AD3d at 799 ; Matter of Sanchez v City of New York , 116 AD3d 703, 704 ).