87 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 30 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gershanow v. Town of Clarkstowngreen2 sentences2014In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the key factors that the court must consider are 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 movant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation, whether the delay would *890 substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of cl 2013In determining whether to grant an application 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 whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted, (3) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve | 10 | 10 |
Valila v. Town of Hempsteadgreen2 sentences2025"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 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 | 7 | 8 |
Placido v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2018In 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 | 7 | 8 |
Matter of Brown v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025"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 | 6 | 13 |
Matter of Weaver v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2022However, 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 | 4 | 11 |
Kuterman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025"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 | 4 | 5 |
Mitchell v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2016In determining whether to grant 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 *1016 the merits” (Matter of Mitchell v City of New York, 112 AD3d 940, 940 [2013]; see Matter of D 2016In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts, including whether, inter alia, (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, (3) the claimant was mentally or physically incapacitated, and (4) the delay in serving the notice of claim would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its d | 4 | 5 |
Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2017School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 147 [2008]). 2017School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 148 [2008]). | 4 | 4 |
Destine v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025Even 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]). 2016In determining whether to grant 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 *1016 the merits” (Matter of Mitchell v City of New York, 112 AD3d 940, 940 [2013]; see Matter of D | 3 | 9 |
Matter of Mohamed v. New York Citygreen2 sentences2024Dist. , 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 2024In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) a public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's specific 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 not substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits ( see Lobos v City of New York , 219 AD3d 720, 722 ; Matter of Brown v | 3 | 5 |
Lobos v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025"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" ( Lobos v | 3 | 4 |
Whittaker v. New York City Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2015Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents. *998 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, (2) 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, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense (see Gene 2014In determining whether to grant 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 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 failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Genera | 3 | 3 |
Gilmartin v. Abbasgreen2 sentences2016“While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” (Matter of Placido v County of Orange, 112 AD3d 722, 723 [2013] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 60 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2009]). 2014“While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” (Matter of Placido v County of Orange, 112 AD3d 722, 723 [2013] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 60 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2009]). | 3 | 3 |
Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. County of Westchestergreen2 sentences2013In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether, in particular, the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Abramovitz v City of New York, 99 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2012]; Matter o 2013In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether, in particular, the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Abramovitz v City of New York, 99 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2012]; Matter o | 3 | 3 |
Mitchell v. Town of Greenburghgreen2 sentences2014In 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 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 | 2 | 9 |
Iacone v. Town of Hempsteadgreen2 sentences2014In 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 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 | 2 | 8 |
Khalid v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2016In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts, including whether, inter alia, (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, (3) the claimant was mentally or physically incapacitated, and (4) the delay in serving the notice of claim would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its d 2013In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of its justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made | 2 | 3 |
Matter of Vincent v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025"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 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 | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Rojas v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.green2 sentences2025Corp. , 127 AD3d 870, 872; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Guerre v New York City Tr. 2025Corp. , 127 AD3d 870, 872 ; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Guerre v New York City Tr. | 2 | 2 |
| Tonissen v. Huntington U.F.S.D.green | 2 | 2 |
| Matter of Lawhorne v. City of New Yorkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In re Dominique R.green | 2 | 2 |
| Ambrico v. Lynbrook Union Free School Districtgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Henriques v. City of New Yorkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Acosta v. City of New Yorkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hebbard v. Carpentergreen | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Centergreen2 sentences2018Ctr ., 6 NY3d 531, 535 ; Matter of Fethallah v New York City Police Dept ., 150 AD3d 998, 999-1000 ; Matter of Ramos v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y. , 148 AD3d 909, 910 ). 2018Ctr ., 6 NY3d 531, 535 ). | 1 | 4 |
Hudson v. Patelgreen2 sentences2025"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 | 1 | 2 |
Etienne v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim against a public corporation, a 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, (2) 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, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits ( see Matter of Brown v City of New York , 218 AD3d 466, 467 2024While the presence or absence of any one of the above factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the public corporation acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting a claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter is considered to be the most significant factor ( see Etienne v City of New York , 189 AD3d at 1401 ; Matter of Catania v City of New York , 188 AD3d 1041, 1042 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of McGrue v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of McVea v. County of Orangegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Ruiz v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Ramos v. Board of Educ. of the City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Katsiouras v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Murray v. Village of Malvernegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Mounsey v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Simpson v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Wieman-Gibson v. County of Suffolkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Snyder v. County of Suffolkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Grande v. City of New Yorkgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Reddick v. New York City Hous. Auth.
neutral
2 sentences2025Auth. , 188 AD3d 890, 890 ; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). "'While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance'" ( Matter of Mohamed v New York City , 139 AD3d 858, 858 , quoting Matter of Placido v County of Orange , 112 AD3d 722, 723 ). 2023Auth. , 188 AD3d 890, 890 ). | 7 | 2022–2025 |
Platt v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Corp., 105 AD3d 1026 , 1027 [2013]; Matter of Felice v Eastport / South Manor Cent. 2014Corp., 105 AD3d 1026 , 1027 [2013]; see Matter of Mitchell v Town of Greenburgh, 96 AD3d 852, 852 [2012]; Matter of Gershanow v *782 Town of Clarkstown, 88 AD3d 879, 880 [2011]). | 7 | 2013–2015 |
Billman v. Town of Deerpark
green
2 sentences2013In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of its justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made 2013In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of its justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made | 4 | 2013–2013 |
McLeod v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2013In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of its justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made 2013In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation 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 claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of its justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made | 4 | 2013–2013 |
Groves v. New York City Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2013Auth., 44 AD3d at 856-857 ; Matter of White v New York City Hous. 2013Auth., 44 AD3d at 856-857 ; Matter of White v New York City Hous. | 4 | 2012–2013 |
Durand v. MV Transp., Inc.
green
2 sentences2022"In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether (1) the claimant has 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, (2) the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits" ( Durand v MV Transp., Inc. , 186 AD3d 564, 565 ). 2022"In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether (1) the claimant has 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, (2) the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits" ( Durand v MV Transp., Inc. , 186 AD3d 564, 565 ). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Matter of D'Agostino v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2025"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 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Newcomb v. Middle Country Central School District
green
2 sentences2025Dist. , 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 2024Dist. , 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 | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| Sanchez v. City of New York green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Rush v. County of Suffolk green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Doe v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Matter of Salazar v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Santos v. Westchester Med. Ctr. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Brown v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Catania v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Robinson v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Olsen v. County of Nassau green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Manbodh v. New York City Tr. Auth. neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Camet v. County of Suffolk neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matter of Duke v. Westchester Med. Ctr. neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Hunte v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Kelly v. City of New York green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Cuccia v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| McClancy v. Plainedge Union Free School District green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matter of Beverly F. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Claud v. West Babylon Union Free School District neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Paige Leeds v. Port Washington Union Free School District green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ryan v. New York City Transit Authority neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gonzalez v. Lawrence green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gideon v. Flatlands Beverage Distributors, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| In re Ahmad C. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Morris v. County of Suffolk green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.