Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Patelgreen1 sentence2018"In determining a motion 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 was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the claimant's infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim, (3) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable [*2]excuse fo | 1 | 1 |
Bottini v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2011While there is nothing in the record to indicate that the original notice of claim was prepared and served in bad faith, the inconsistent and varying descriptions of the nature of the claim and manner of the accident contained in the original notice of claim, the plaintiffs testimony at the municipal hearing, the complaint, the proposed amended notice of claim, and the plaintiffs affidavit in support of her motion, prejudiced the defendant’s ability to conduct a meaningful and timely investigation (see Bottini v City of New York, 78 AD3d 632, 633 [2010]; Parker-Cherry v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Parker-Cherry v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2011Auth., 62 AD3d 845, 846 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Mahase v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authoritygreen1 sentence2006Operat ing Auth., 3 AD3d 410, 410-411 [2004]; Barksdale v New York City Tr. | 1 | 1 |
Earle v. Town of Oyster Baygreen1 sentence2003Further, any amended notice of claim served two years after the incident would be prejudicial to the City, since the initial notice of claim served in this case failed to describe the accident location with sufficient particularity (see Earle v Town of Oyster Bay, 247 AD2d 357, 358 [1998]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Canelos v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2016Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the granting of leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim prejudiced NYCHA by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim (see Canelos v City of New York, 37 AD3d 637 [2007]; cf. Robles v New York City Hous. 2016Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the granting of leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim prejudiced NYCHA by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim (see Canelos v City of New York, 37 AD3d 637 [2007]; cf. Robles v New York City Hous. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
W & W Glass, LLC v. 1113 York Avenue Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2016Auth., 23 NY3d 982 [2014]). 2016Auth., 23 NY3d 982 [2014]). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Castillo v. Kings County Hospital Center
green
1 sentence2024Ctr. , 149 AD3d at 897 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bazile v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2018The proposed amended notice of claim with respect to the mother's derivative claim is time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the plaintiffs moved to serve a late notice of claim, and the toll for infancy pursuant to CPLR 208 does not apply to a parent's derivative cause of action ( see General Municipal Law § 50-i[1]; Bazile v City of New York , 94 AD3d 929 ; Blackburn v Three Vil. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ramirez v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2018"In determining a motion 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 was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the claimant's infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim, (3) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable [*2]excuse fo | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Henry v. Aguilar
neutral
1 sentence2003In addition, the proposed amended notice of claim was a “nullity,” as it was served upon the defendant City of New York without leave of court (Henry v Aguilar, 282 AD2d 711 [2001]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Evers v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1990Nor did the plaintiff proffer any evidence that the condition of the sidewalk defect, which is transitory in nature (see, Caselli v City of New York, supra, at 253; cf., Evers v City of New York, 90 AD2d 786 ), remained the same at the time of either the Comptroller’s hearing or her motion to strike the defendant’s first affirmative defense (see, Fendig v City of New York, supra, at 521; Martire v City of New York, supra, at 567; Mazza v City of New York, supra). | 1 | 1990–1990 |