Camarella v. East Irondequoit Central School Bd.
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BREITEL |
| Citation | 356 N.Y.S.2d 553,34 N.Y.2d 139,313 N.E.2d 29 |
| Parties | , 313 N.E.2d 29 Bonito CAMARELLA, an infant, by her parent and natural guardian, Louis Camarella, et al., Appellants, v. EAST IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL BOARD, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1974 |
John R. Davison, Albany, and Richard Alan Kroll, Rochester, for appellants.
Homer H. Marks, Rochester, for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements awarded to the appellants. In view of the highly unusual procedural posture in which this appeal comes to us, particularly the fact that the appellants may have been misled by respondent's failure clearly to assert the timeliness issue until after the tort claim had been tried on the merits, in the exercise of our discretion, we deem it appropriate to assess costs and disbursements against the respondent School Board, the party prevailing on this appeal. (CPLR 8107, Consol.Laws, c. 8.)
With respect to the merits of the appeal, we note that appellants' notice of claim was untimely served 92 days after the accident. (General Municipal Law, § 50--e; Pugh v. Board of Educ., 38 A.D.2d 619, 326 N.Y.S.2d 300, affd. 30 N.Y.2d 968, 335 N.Y.S.2d 830, 287 N.E.2d 621.) Relief from late filing is only available where a motion for such relief is made within one year after the happening of the event and prior to commencement of an action on the claim. (General Municipal Law, § 50--e, subd. 5.) Here, neither the one-year limitation nor the requirement that the motion be made pretrial was observed and, accordingly, relief from late filing was unavailable. Nor may an accident report filed with the respondent by the school principal on the day after the accident or a letter of representation filed by appellants' attorney with respondent's insurance carrier one week thereafter, be treated as a defective or irregular notice of claim under the saving provisions of subdivision 6 of section 50--e. That subdivision deals only with inconsequential defects or irregularities, not pertaining to the manner or time of service, in otherwise sound notices of claim. The fact remains that these documents were not intended to be a notice of claim in which curable good faith mistakes or omissions were made. Moreover, it is not at all clear that they were served on the proper parties. (§ 50--e, subd. 3.) Finally, we agree with the Appellate Division that there being no factual basis in the record to find an estoppel, it was an abuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E. Williamson Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Town of Parish
...be considered for the first time on appeal ( Camarella v. East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 41 A.D.2d 29, 31, 341 N.Y.S.2d 729, affd. 34 N.Y.2d 139, 356 N.Y.S.2d 553, 313 N.E.2d 29; Hart v. East Plaza, Inc., 62 A.D.2d 113, 117, 403 N.Y.S.2d 928; Giles v. County of Otsego, 27 Misc.2d 749, 2......
-
Barnaman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
...New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d at 665, 382 N.Y.S.2d 18, 345 N.E.2d 561; Camarella v. East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 34 N.Y.2d 139, 142, 356 N.Y.S.2d 553, 313 N.E.2d 29; Chesney v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 5, 5 N.Y.2d 1007, 185 N.Y.S.2d 263, 158 N.E.2......
-
People v. Patterson, s. 80-1636
...N.E.2d 1150), one may be held to aid or abet without actively participating in the overt act. People v. Kessler (1974), 57 Ill.2d 493, 313 N.E.2d 29. In the present case, the statements of Garlington and Key, coupled [102 Ill.App.3d 851] with the acts of all the defendants at the Garlington......
-
Davis v. New York City Transit Authority
...to enforce the claim. This requirement is frequently adverted to by the courts [citing Camarella v. East Irondequoit Cent. School Bd., 34 N.Y.2d 139, 356 N.Y.S.2d 553, 313 N.E.2d 29; Weed v. County of Nassau, 34 N.Y.2d 723, 357 N.Y.S.2d 493, 313 N.E.2d 787; Joseph v. McVeigh, 285 App.Div. 3......