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: Lidia Fouto, appellant, v. City of Yonkers, respondent.
Submitted—March 23, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered April 27, 2010, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, a court shall consider, as key factors, whether (1) the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (3) the claimant was an infant, and (4) the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50–e[5]; Matter of Vicari v. Grand Ave. Middle School, 52 AD3d 838; Matter of Groves v. New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 856; Matter of March v. Town of Wappinger, 29 AD3d 998; Gibbs v. City of New York, 22 AD3d 717). Here, the petitioner's conclusory assertions failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and neither the police call report nor the accident reports filed by the skating rink manager were sufficient to charge the City of Yonkers with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter. Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in moving for leave to serve a late notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the City's ability to maintain a defense on the merits.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2010–04963 (Index No. 2645 /10)
Decided: April 05, 2011
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)