95 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joy v. County of Suffolkgreen2 sentences2018"Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense" ( Matter of Jaffier v City of New York , 148 AD3d at 1022 ; see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 10 2017Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]; Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d | 5 | 5 |
Henriques v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013The 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 | 5 | 5 |
Hilton v. Town of Richlandgreen2 sentences2001“The three key factors in determining whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense” (Hilton v Town of Richland, 216 AD2d 921 ). “[T]he presence or absence of any one of the numerous relevant factors th 2001In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are “whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense” (Hilton v Town of Richland, 216 AD2d 921 ). | 3 | 6 |
Chambers v. Nassau County Health Care Corp.green2 sentences2017Neither the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d at 1026 ; Matter of Chambers v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 50 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2008]). 2014Neither the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d at 1026 ; Matter of Chambers v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 50 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2008]). | 3 | 4 |
March v. Town of Wappingergreen2 sentences2017Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]; Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 2014Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]; Matter of March v Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d | 3 | 3 |
Bovich v. East Meadow Public Librarygreen2 sentences2012Lib., 16 AD3d 11, 19-20 [2005]). 2012Lib., 16 AD3d 11, 19-20 [2005]). | 3 | 3 |
Vicari v. Grand Avenue Middle Schoolgreen2 sentences2013Middle School, 52 AD3d 838, 838-839 [2008]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. 2013Middle School, 52 AD3d 838, 838-839 [2008]; Matter of Groves v New York City Tr. | 2 | 5 |
Henderson v. Town of Van Burengreen2 sentences2016“While the presence or absence of any single factor is not determinative, one factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the [municipality] received actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim in a timely manner” (Matter of Henderson v Town of Van Buren, 281 AD2d 872, 873 [2001]; see Hilton v Town of Richland, 216 AD2d 921, 921 [1995]). 2002“In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are 'whether the [plaintiff] has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual [knowledge] of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual * * * or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense’” (Matter of Henderson v Town of Van Buren, 281 AD2d 872, 873 ). | 2 | 4 |
Flores v. County of Nassaugreen2 sentences2005General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Ramirez v County of Nassau, 13 AD3d 456 [2004]; Matter of Flores v Coun 2004General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Flores v County of Nassau, 8 AD3d 377, 378 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 | 2 | 4 |
Mieux v. Alden High Schoolgreen2 sentences2016“It is well settled that key factors for the court to consider in determining an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining a defense on the merits” (Le Mieux v Alden High School, 1 AD3d 995, 996 [2003]). 2016“It is well settled that key factors for the court to consider in determining an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining a defense on the merits” (Le Mieux v Alden High School, 1 AD3d 995, 996 [2003]). | 2 | 3 |
| Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Winggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Rush v. County of Suffolkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Nardi v. County of Westchestergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Matarrese v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
Perry v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1994The key factors in determining whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Carbone v Town of Brookhaven, 176 AD2d 778 ; Matter of Perry v City of New York, 1991“In deciding whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (Braverman v City of White Plains, 115 AD2d 689, 690 )” (Matter of Perry v City of Ne | 1 | 7 |
Braverman v. City of White Plainsgreen2 sentences1991This court has held that in "deciding whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits” (Matter of Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692, 693 ; se 1991“In deciding whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (Braverman v City of White Plains, 115 AD2d 689, 690 )” (Matter of Perry v City of Ne | 1 | 6 |
Rabanar v. City of Yonkersgreen2 sentences2004In determining whether to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court shall consider all relevant factors including: (1) whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) whether the claimant was an infant, (3) whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim, and (4) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; 2002In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant was an infant or was mentally or physically incapacitated, (3) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining | 1 | 5 |
Perlin v. South Orangetown Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2004In determining whether to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court shall consider all relevant factors including: (1) whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) whether the claimant was an infant, (3) whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim, and (4) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; 2002In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court should consider whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Resto v City of New York, 240 AD2d 499, 500 ; Matter of Deegan v City of New York | 1 | 5 |
Ramirez v. County of Nassaugreen2 sentences2007Ctr., 6 NY3d 531 [2006]; Matter of Ramirez v County of Nassau, 13 AD3d 456 [2004]; Matter of Flores v County of Nassau, 8 AD3d 377 [2004]). 2005General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Ramirez v County of Nassau, 13 AD3d 456 [2004]; Matter of Flores v Coun | 1 | 3 |
| Valila v. Town of Hempsteadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morrison v. New York City Healthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ceselka v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gilmartin v. Abbasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Devivo v. Town of Carmelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Nassau County Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Corvera v. Nassau County Health Care Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Town of Cape Vincent v. LaClairgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perre v. Town of Poughkeepsiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Friedman v. Orange County Board of Electionsgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shapiro v. County of Nassau
green
2 sentences2003These include whether the petitioners demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to. serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366 [1996]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 [1994]). 2003These include whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366 [1996]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 [1994]). | 10 | 1996–2003 |
Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven
green
2 sentences2004In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, á court should consider, as key factors, whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Pruden v New York City Bd. of Educ., 235 AD2d 426 [1997]; Matter of Buddenhagen v Town 1997In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, it has been repeatedly held that a court should consider the following key factors: whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d | 9 | 1996–2004 |
Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven
green
2 sentences2000When a plaintiff is seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 ; Levette v 1995The three key factors in determining whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense (Carbone v Town of Brookhaven, 176 AD2d 778 ). | 7 | 1993–2000 |
Sosa v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1997"The key factors in determining whether leave to [serve] a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits” (Matter of Sosa v City of New York, 206 AD2d 374 ). 1997In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, it has been repeatedly held that a court should consider the following key factors: whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven, 212 AD2d | 7 | 1995–1997 |
Levette v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
green
2 sentences2000When a plaintiff is seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 ; Levette v 1997In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Levette v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 207 AD2d 330 ; Matter of | 6 | 1996–2001 |
Townsend v. New York City Housing Authority
neutral
2 sentences1997Auth., 194 AD2d 795 ; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). 1997Auth., 194 AD2d 795 ). ’ The plaintiffs contend that the injured plaintiff was so severely injured that he was unable to seek legal counseling at an earlier time. | 5 | 1994–1997 |
Knightner v. City of New York
neutral
2 sentences2004While the infancy of a plaintiff may provide a reasonable excuse for a delay in serving a notice of claim, it is well established that the fact of infancy alone will not suffice as a basis for granting plaintiff leave to file a late notice of claim ( see Brown , 293 AD2d 748 ; Matter of Knightner v City of New York , 269 AD2d 397 ). 2002The “infancy of the injured petitioner, standing alone, [does] not compel the granting of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim” (Matter of Knightner v City of New York, 269 AD2d 397 ). | 4 | 2002–2004 |
Brown v. County of Westchester
green
2 sentences2004In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of 2003In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) instructs the court to consider certain factors, including whether (1) an infant is involved, (2) the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of | 4 | 2002–2004 |
Fisch v. Rabbani
green
2 sentences2002Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). 2001Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). | 4 | 2000–2002 |
Rogers v. City of Yonkers
green
2 sentences2002Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). 2001Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). | 4 | 2000–2002 |
Heldma Group, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
green
2 sentences2002Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). 2001Auth., 275 AD2d 746 ; Rogers v City of Yonkers, 271 AD2d 593 ; Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay, 244 AD2d 408 ). | 4 | 2000–2002 |
Farrell v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1998In exercising its discretion, the court must focus on whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially preju dice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Singh v City Univ., 223 AD2d 545, 546 ; Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698 ). 1996In exercising its discretion, the court must focus on whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 AD2d 698 ; Matter of Charles v New York City Health & Hosps. | 4 | 1993–1998 |
Doone v. Reiser
neutral
2 sentences2013The 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 | 3 | 2008–2013 |
Dibella v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2003These include whether the petitioners demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to. serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366 [1996]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 [1994]). 2003These include whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366 [1996]; Matter of Shapiro v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 545 [1994]). | 3 | 2000–2003 |
Deegan v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2002In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court should consider whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Resto v City of New York, 240 AD2d 499, 500 ; Matter of Deegan v City of New York 2002In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court should consider whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]; Matter of Resto v City of New York, 240 AD2d 499, 500 ; Matter of Deegan v City of New York, | 3 | 2000–2002 |
| Newton v. Newton green | 3 | 1997–1997 |
| Charles v. New York City Health green | 3 | 1993–1996 |
| Cotten v. County of Nassau green | 2 | 2004–2009 |
| Narcisse v. Incorporated Village of Central Islip green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Pruden v. New York City Board of Education neutral | 2 | 1997–2004 |
| Mallory v. City of New York green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| Love v. City of Auburn green | 2 | 2001–2002 |
| Harris v. Dormitory Authority green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| Matter of Jaffier v. City of New York green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Mounsey v. City of New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Whittaker v. New York City Board of Education green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Claud v. West Babylon Union Free School District neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School District green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| White v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Acosta v. City of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Welch v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Alexander v. City of New York green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Morehead v. Westchester County neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Duarte v. Suffolk County green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Nieves v. Girimonte green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| MATTER OF FORJONE v. Beadle green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Frick v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Amin v. City of New York green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Pillittere v. Ted & Ann Tours, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |