Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of DELUXE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW YORK, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, For Leave to Serve a Late Notice of Claim Upon the New York City School Construction Authority, Defendant-Appellant, Gateway Demolition Corp., Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1997, which denied defendant's motion to vacate an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 9, 1996, on default, granting plaintiff's motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Appellant failed in the motion court to address the estoppel argument upon which petitioner premised its motion to file a notice of claim, nunc pro tunc, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e. Moreover, even if there had been some satisfactory answer by appellant to petitioner's claim that appellant was estopped from opposing its motion for permission to file a late notice of claim, the denial of appellant's motion for vacatur would still have been proper since, as the IAS court found, appellant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its default and it is, in any event, clear that appellant has not made the requisite showing of a meritorious defense. In the latter connection, we note that the Statute of Limitations defense proffered by appellant is manifestly without merit. Given the continuing nature of the trespass alleged by petitioner, which trespass assertedly went unabated until petitioner removed the unlawfully dumped debris from its property in or around July 1996, petitioner's claim for trespass was timely interposed (see Restatement [Second] of Torts, § 161[1], Comment b; Bomptin Realty Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 196 Misc. 218, 91 N.Y.S.2d 780, revd. on other grounds 276 App.Div. 1094, 96 N.Y.S.2d 414).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 28, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)