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.
Mary Ann GANGLOFF, Individually and as Parent and Legal Guardian of Shannon Riedel, an Infant, et al., Appellants, v. EAST ISLIP SCHOOL DISTRICT a/k/a Islip Terrace Junior High School, Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered March 20, 1996, which denied their application for leave to serve a late notice of claim and granted the cross motion by the defendant to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Shannon Riedel was allegedly injured while on property owned by the defendant, and she and her mother thereafter commenced this action to recover damages. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the defendant did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs' claims within 90 days of the accrual thereof or within a reasonable time thereafter (Matter of O'Dowd v. City of New York, 226 A.D.2d 642, 641 N.Y.S.2d 541; Matter of Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven, 212 A.D.2d 605, 622 N.Y.S.2d 547; Matter of Sosa v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 374, 614 N.Y.S.2d 50; Matter of Perry v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692, 693, 519 N.Y.S.2d 862). The student incident report and the accident and sickness proof of loss form relied upon by the plaintiffs contained contradictory information as to how and where the accident occurred, and were inadequate to give notice either of the nature and severity of the injuries ultimately claimed, or that the injuries arose from a slippery condition of such a nature that it constituted a trap (see, Matter of Rusiecki v. Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 227 A.D.2d 493, 643 N.Y.S.2d 132). Accordingly, because the defendant would be substantially prejudiced if required to defend against the plaintiffs' claims, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to serve a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Mondaca v. County of Westchester, 195 A.D.2d 511, 600 N.Y.S.2d 260; Steiger v. Board of Educ. for Connetquot Cent. School Dist. of Islip, 192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 827; Brown v. New York City Tr. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 178, 180, 568 N.Y.S.2d 54).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 02, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)