Camacho v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 05 November 1992 |
| Citation | 589 N.Y.S.2d 421,187 A.D.2d 262 |
| Parties | Carmen CAMACHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, MILONAS and KUPFERMAN, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, County of Bronx (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered on March 11, 1992, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, is unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, without costs and disbursements.
On February 28, 1991, plaintiff was accosted in the stairwell of 2131 Clinton Avenue in the Bronx when an intruder carrying a knife forced her to accompany him to the roof landing. There, he robbed and attempted to sexually assault her, and, when she resisted, he cut her with a knife. The building, where plaintiff had resided for some ten years, was owned at the time by defendant New York City, and it is her contention that she was injured as the result of defendant's negligence in failing to maintain the premises in a proper condition. Immediately following the event in question, plaintiff advised the manager of the building of what had transpired, and she also notified the police. They responded to the scene, investigated the matter and prepared a report of the event. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Jacobi Hospital, and she remained there for about a week and a half before being transferred to Montefiore Hospital for surgery. Counsel was retained on June 28, 1991, and a notice of claim was filed on July 3, 1991, approximately a month after the expiration of the 90 day period required for service of a notice of claim (General Municipal Law 50-e[1][a]. Defendant disallowed the claim pursuant to a letter dated July 29, 1991, and plaintiff moved by order to show cause for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-e(5).
The Supreme Court should have granted the application. Regardless of whether or not the City of New York had actual knowledge of the underlying facts from the building manager, one of its employees, or from the police within 90 days of the subject incident, the fact remains that it received notice shortly thereafter with the filing of the notice of claim. Moreover, defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice arising out of the delay of a single month. Its allegation that the building had changed ownership in the meantime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plaza v. N.Y. Health & Hospitals Corp.
...While we agree with the dissent that the statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed ( Camacho v. City of New York, 187 A.D.2d 262, 263, 589 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1992] ), such construction should not be taken as carte blanche to file a late notice of claim years after the incid......
-
Moynihan v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.
...Dept.2005] ). However, courts should liberally construe the statute because it is remedial in nature (Camacho v. City of New York, 187 A.D.2d 262, 263, 589 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1st Dept.1992] ) and should not operate to frustrate the rights of those with legitimate claims (see Porcaro, 20 A.D.3d a......
-
Pinkett v. City of N.Y., Index No. 158266/2013
...in determining these motions, the statute is remedial in nature and, as such, should be liberally construed. See Camacho v City of New York, 187 A.D.2d 262 (1st Dept. 1992). "However, whether the public corporation acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is s......
-
DeBose v. City of N.Y.
...Dept. of Environmental Protection, 11 Misc.3d 519, 812 N.Y.S.2d 820 (Sup.Ct., New York Co.2006)citing Camacho v. City of New York, 187 A.D.2d 262, 263, 589 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1st Dept 1992). Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e (5), the court may, in its discretion, extend the time to serve ......