essential facts underlying claim in New York

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2017School Dist., 50 AD3d at 148 ).

2015School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 148 [2008]).

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2013While a student incident report and a medical claim form were prepared by the school’s nurse and principal on the date of the accident, these papers, which merely indicated that the infant was injured when she fell from the monkey bars on the school’s playground during recess, did not provide the respondent with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim that the monkey bars were dangerous, unsafe, and negligently maintained, or that the respondent did not adequately supervise their use (see Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 101 AD3d 721, 722 [2012]; Matter of Doyle v Elwo

2013While a student incident report and a medical claim form were prepared by the school’s nurse and principal on the date of the accident, these papers, which merely indicated that the infant was injured when she fell from the monkey bars on the school’s playground during recess, did not provide the respondent with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim that the monkey bars were dangerous, unsafe, and negligently maintained, or that the respondent did not adequately supervise their use (see Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 101 AD3d 721, 722 [2012]; Matter of Doyle v Elwo

2013While a student incident report and a medical claim form were prepared by the school’s nurse and principal on the date of the accident, these papers, which merely indicated that the infant was injured when she fell from the monkey bars on the school’s playground during recess, did not provide the respondent with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim that the monkey bars were dangerous, unsafe, and negligently maintained, or that the respondent did not adequately supervise their use (see Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 101 AD3d 721, 722 [2012]; Matter of Doyle v Elwo

2013While a student incident report and a medical claim form were prepared by the school’s nurse and principal on the date of the accident, these papers, which merely indicated that the infant was injured when she fell from the monkey bars on the school’s playground during recess, did not provide the respondent with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim that the monkey bars were dangerous, unsafe, and negligently maintained, or that the respondent did not adequately supervise their use (see Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 101 AD3d 721, 722 [2012]; Matter of Doyle v Elwo

2026Dist. , 147 AD3d 1047, 1048 ).

2024Dist. , 147 AD3d 1047, 1048 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

1995We also agree with the IAS Court that actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim cannot in this case be imputed to respondents from the police accident report (Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251 ), and that the delay has prejudiced respondents in their ability to prepare a defense.

1992A Police Aided Report that fails to connect an occurrence with any negligence on the part of the public corporation does not furnish actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim (see, Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251 ; Fox v City of New York, supra).

2013Auth., 198 AD2d 361, 362 [1993]; Matter of Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692, 693 [1987]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 255 [1984]).

1994Given that the petitioner failed to adequately establish a reasonable excuse for her approximately four-year delay in filing the notice of claim (see, Matter of Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692 ; Fox v City of New York, 91 AD2d 624 ), that the Clarkstown Central School District did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim within a reasonable time of the claim’s accrual (see, Matter of Bloom v Herrick Union Free School Dist., 174 AD2d 665 ; Matter of Katz v Rockville Centre Union Free School Dist., 131 AD2d 574 ), and that the Clarkstown Central School Dist

2014Corp., 93 AD3d 187, 188 [1st Dept 2012] [emphasis added]).

2014Corp., 93 AD3d 187, 188 [1st Dept 2012] [emphasis added]).

2013The fact that the New York City Police Department had knowledge of this accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the City (see Matter of Mitchell v Town of Greenburgh, 96 AD3d 852, 852-853 [2012]; Hardayal v City of New York, 281 AD2d 593 [2001]; Matter of Leiblein v Clark, 207 AD2d 348, 350 [1994]; Matter of Russ v New York City Hous.

2013The fact that the New York City Police Department had knowledge of this accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the City (see Matter of Mitchell v Town of Greenburgh, 96 AD3d 852, 852-853 [2012]; Hardayal v City of New York, 281 AD2d 593 [2001]; Matter of Leiblein v Clark, 207 AD2d 348, 350 [1994]; Matter of Russ v New York City Hous.

2013Auth., 198 AD2d 361, 362 [1993]; Matter of Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692, 693 [1987]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 255 [1984]).

2013Auth., 198 AD2d 361, 362 [1993]; Matter of Perry v City of New York, 133 AD2d 692, 693 [1987]; Caselli v City of New York, 105 AD2d 251, 255 [1984]).

2013The fact that the New York City Police Department had knowledge of this accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the City (see Matter of Mitchell v Town of Greenburgh, 96 AD3d 852, 852-853 [2012]; Hardayal v City of New York, 281 AD2d 593 [2001]; Matter of Leiblein v Clark, 207 AD2d 348, 350 [1994]; Matter of Russ v New York City Hous.

2013The fact that the New York City Police Department had knowledge of this accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the City (see Matter of Mitchell v Town of Greenburgh, 96 AD3d 852, 852-853 [2012]; Hardayal v City of New York, 281 AD2d 593 [2001]; Matter of Leiblein v Clark, 207 AD2d 348, 350 [1994]; Matter of Russ v New York City Hous.

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2013Furthermore, while the principal and the nurse of the learning center, and the injured petitioner’s aide, were aware that the injured petitioner was injured when he was struck by the lunch bag, the petitioners did not establish that the appellant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their claim that another student assaulted the injured petitioner as a result of the appellant’s employees’ negligent supervision (see Matter of Scolo v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 40 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 563, 5

2013School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]).

2013School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]).

2013School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]).

2013School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]).

2025We need not consider respondents' challenge to whether petitioners offered a reasonable excuse for the delay, as even where proof on that factor fails, "such a defect will not be deemed fatal where it is established that the respondent[s] had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and there has otherwise been no compelling demonstration of prejudice" ( Matter of Holbrook v Village of Hoosick Falls , 168 AD3d at 1264; see Daprile v Town of Copake , 155 AD3d at 1406-1407 ).

2019It is well settled, however, that where, as here, a petitioner fails to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a notice of claim, such a defect will not be deemed fatal where it is established that the respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and there has otherwise been no compelling demonstration of prejudice ( see Daprile v Town of Copake , 155 AD3d at 1406 ; Matter of Lanphere v County of Washington , 301 AD2d 936, 938 [2003]).

2020Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the accident was reported to the municipal defendants within 90 days after the claim arose ( see Washington v City of New York , 72 NY2d 881, 883 ; Matter of Klass v City of New York , 103 AD3d at 801 ; Matter of National Grange Mut.

2007In addition, he failed to establish that the respondent had knowledge of the essential facts underlying his claim within 90 days of its accrual, or within a reasonable time thereafter (see Washington v City of New York, 72 NY2d 881, 883 [1988]; see also Matter of Martinez v New York City Hous.