required notice claim in New York

2024Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the required notice of claim and the notice of claim served in October 22 is deemed a nullity as it was not served within the 90-day window and it was done without leave of court (see General Municipal Law §50-e; McCarty v. City ofl\'ew York, 44 AD3d 447 [1 st Dept 2007 ); see also Wollin.s v. ,Vew York City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30 [I st Dept 2004]).

2024Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the required notice of claim and the notice of claim served in October 22 is deemed a nullity as it was not served within the 90-day window and it was done without leave of court (see General Municipal Law §50-e; McCarty v. City ofl\'ew York, 44 AD3d 447 [1 st Dept 2007 ); see also Wollin.s v. ,Vew York City Bd. of Educ., 8 AD3d 30 [I st Dept 2004]).

1990Boyle v Kelley (supra) involved an attempt to recover money seized in the course of a December 1973 gambling arrest in Suffolk County.

1987Special Term also properly found that the petitioner failed to file the required notice of claim, which served to bar his proceeding (see, County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307 , cert denied 464 US 1018 ; Boyle v Kelley, 42 NY2d 88 ).

2017However, the court correctly, in the alternative, denied the motion on the merits, as the father’s testimony established that the mother canceled only one of the two allegedly missed visits and that that visit was canceled because the child was ill (see Matter of Figueroa-Rolon v Torres, 121 AD3d 684, 685 [2014]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4 , 17 [2013], affd 26 NY3d 19 [2015]).

2017However, the court correctly, in the alternative, denied the motion on the merits, as the father’s testimony established that the mother canceled only one of the two allegedly missed visits and that that visit was canceled because the child was ill (see Matter of Figueroa-Rolon v Torres, 121 AD3d 684, 685 [2014]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4 , 17 [2013], affd 26 NY3d 19 [2015]).

2006The fifth cause of action, asserting a claim for defamation based upon statements made by the Town Supervisor during Town Board meetings regarding the tone and manner of petitioners’ comments, must be dismissed as the result of petitioners’ failure to file the required notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; De Cicco v Madison County, 300 AD2d 706 , 707 n [2002]).

2002This action has its genesis in a lawsuit commenced on December 15, 1992, Piazza v Major League Baseball ( 831 F Supp 420 [ED Pa 1993]) alleging a number of claims relating to statements made in September 1992 by a baseball club executive associated with the Baseball Office of the Commissioner, a plaintiff herein, along with The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs and The National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (collectively Baseball), in connection with an investigation conducted of Piazza and the other plaintiffs, whose bid to purchase a major league franchise had been rejec

1994Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61 ).

1990Respondent, relying on Beck v City of New York ( 133 Misc 2d 265 ), takes the position that petitioner was required to file a notice of claim within 90 days of the seizure of the money, and that this proceeding should be dismissed because of petitioner’s failure to file the required notice of claim.

1987Because plaintiff admittedly failed to file the required notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, these tort claims must be dismissed (Pretino v Wolbern, 84 AD2d 830 ).

1987Special Term also properly found that the petitioner failed to file the required notice of claim, which served to bar his proceeding (see, County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307 , cert denied 464 US 1018 ; Boyle v Kelley, 42 NY2d 88 ).

1987Special Term also properly found that the petitioner failed to file the required notice of claim, which served to bar his proceeding (see, County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307 , cert denied 464 US 1018 ; Boyle v Kelley, 42 NY2d 88 ).

1986II The Appellate Division erred in extending our holding in Grant Co. v Srogi (supra) beyond the facts on which it was based (see, Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397 [decided herewith]).

1986II The Appellate Division erred in extending our holding in Grant Co. v Srogi (supra) beyond the facts on which it was based (see, Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters., 68 NY2d 397 [decided herewith]).

1983Parenthetically, the court in Caffaro went further to state (p 250): “Indeed, it would seem that any amendment authorized by EPTL 11-3.3 (subd. [b], par. [2]) — under which death must have resulted from the same injury on which the action for personal injuries' is based — will necessarily meet the notice prerequisite of CPLR 203 (subd. [e]).” EPTL 11-3.3 (subd [b], par [2]) provides: “(2) Where an action to recover damages for personal injury has been brought, and the injured person dies, as a result of the injury, before verdict, report or decision, his personal representative may enlarge the

1952(See Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 304 N. Y. 628 ; Matter of Freimer v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 1084 , and Matter of Babinsky v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 871 .) Applicants’ motions are denied, without costs.

1952(See Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 304 N. Y. 628 ; Matter of Freimer v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 1084 , and Matter of Babinsky v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 871 .) Applicants’ motions are denied, without costs.

1952(See Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 304 N. Y. 628 ; Matter of Freimer v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 1084 , and Matter of Babinsky v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 871 .) Applicants’ motions are denied, without costs.