municipality defense in New York

2014When determining whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted, the court must consider “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” (Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320, 321 [1st Dept 2003]).

2013When presented with an application for leave to file a late notice of claim, the court considers “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” (Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320, 321 [1st Dept 2003]).

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension of time for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable ti

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time there

2011In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the key factors which the court must consider are whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, 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 claimant was physically incapacitated, whether the claimant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation, and whether the delay would substan

2009In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the key factors which the court must consider are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a rea sonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Blair v Pleasantville Union Free School Dist., 52 AD3d 827 [2008]; Ma

2024"Standing is . . . a threshold requirement for a plaintiff [or petitioner] seeking to challenge governmental action" ( New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello , 2 NY3d 207, 211 ). "'[T]he right of a municipality to challenge the acts of its neighbors must be determined on the basis of the same rules of standing that apply to litigants generally'" ( Village of Pomona v Town of Ramapo , 94 AD3d 1103, 1105 , quoting Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v Town of Ramapo , 45 AD3d 74, 86 ).

2012However, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), (7) and 7804 (f) to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action, which alleged violations of General Municipal Law § 239-m, and of SEQRA, respectively. “[T]he right of a municipality to challenge the acts of its neighbors must be determined on the basis of the same rules of standing that apply to litigants generally” (Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v Town of Ramapo, 45 AD3d at 86 ).

2012“To establish standing under SEQRA, the petitioner[ ] must show (1) that [it] will suffer an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interest sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” (id. at 89-90 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 687 [1996]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772-774 [1991]; Matter of Barrett v Dutchess County Legislature, 38 AD3d 651, 653 [2007]). “[Villages may

2007The issue presented by the doctrine of standing is whether the litigants “should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of [the] dispute” (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 769 [1991]).

2006School Dist., 3 AD3d 492, 493 [2004]; see Matter of Termini v Valley Stream Union Free School Dist.

2006School Dist., 3 AD3d 492, 493 [2004]; see Matter of Termini v Valley Stream Union Free School Dist.

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time there

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension of time for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable ti

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension of time for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable ti

2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006].) The notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, but courts have discretion to grant an extension for service of a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1], [5]). “ ‘The key factors which the court must consider in determining if leave should be granted are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time there

2009School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 [2008]), after considering “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” (Matter ofValestil v City of New York, 295 AD2d 619 [2002]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Felice v Eastport!South Manor Cent.

2008School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Lodati v City of New York, 303 AD2d 406 [2003]), after considering “ ‘whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense’ ” (Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658, 659 [2007], quoting Matter of Hicks v City of New York, 8 AD3d 566 [2004]; see Matter of Vale

2008School Dist., 50 AD3d 138 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Lodati v City of New York, 303 AD2d 406 [2003]), after considering “ ‘whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense’ ” (Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658, 659 [2007], quoting Matter of Hicks v City of New York, 8 AD3d 566 [2004]; see Matter of Vale

2008The key factors in determining whether to allow service of a late notice of claim are whether (1) the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d at 659 ; Matter of Lodati v City of New York, 303 AD2d at 407 ).

2025"In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the court, in its discretion, must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether (1) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) 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 (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense" ( Etienne v City of New

2025"In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the court, in its discretion, must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether (1) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) 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 (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense" ( Etienne v City of New

2024Auth. , 202 [*2]AD3d 786, 787). "'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 ; see Matter of Galicia v City of New York , 175 AD3d 681 , 682).

2016The party seeking permission to serve a late notice of claim has the burden of persuading the court that the above-noted factors are in her favor (see Matter of Mohamed v New York City, 139 AD3d 858, 859 [2016]; Matter of Lauray v City of New York, 62 AD3d 467 [2009]).

2005In exercising its discretion, the court is to consider (1) whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense on the merits” (Matter of Allen, 268 AD2d 520, 521 [2000] [citations omitted]).

2001In exercising its discretion, the Supreme Court should consider “(1) whether the [plaintiff] has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense on the merits” (Matter of Allen, 268 AD2d 520, 521 ).

2024Irrespective of the allegations made against the employee, 1f the municipality's investigation demonstrates that the wrongful act or omission actually occurred within the scope of the public employee's duties~ the municipality must provide a defense. 2 Polak v. City of Schenectady, 181 A.D.2d 233, 236 (3d Dept. 1992).