Figueroa v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 21 March 1983 |
| Citation | 460 N.Y.S.2d 119,92 A.D.2d 908 |
| Parties | Jose FIGUEROA, Sr., individually, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frederick A.O. Schwartz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath and Miriam Skolnik, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered Novemb 30, 1981, which granted petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Order reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and petitioners' application denied.
The police report did not state that the submerged barge was unmarked, did not give its exact location, and did not list any names of witnesses. Therefore, it did not furnish the appellant City of New York with notice within the 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter (see Matter of Morris v. County of Suffolk, 88 A.D.2d 956, 451 N.Y.S.2d 448). It appears that appellant would be prejudiced in maintaining a defense because of the delay. Furthermore, petitioners did not set forth valid reasons to excuse their delay. Ignorance of the requirements of subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is not a valid excuse for noncompliance (Matter of Somma v. City of New York, 81 A.D.2d 889, 439 N.Y.S.2d 50) and petitioners did not demonstrate physical or mental incapacity. The inability to speak or understand English is not a sufficient excuse for a failure to serve a timely notice of claim (Torres v. City of New York, 50 A.D.2d 826, 376 N.Y.S.2d 6). Therefore, the order under review is reversed and the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caselli v. City of New York
...the collision between the two vehicles and made no connection between the accident and the oil spill (see, also, Figueroa v. City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 460 N.Y.S.2d 119; but see Innes v. County of Genesee, 99 A.D.2d 642, 472 N.Y.S.2d 223, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 779, 477 N.Y.S.2d 326, 465 N.E......
-
Bullard v. City of New York
...a requirement that a notice of claim be filed within a certain period of time is insufficient as a legal excuse (Figueroa v. City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 460 N.Y.S.2d 119). Thus, the claim here that she was never advised a notice had to be filed is without dispositive effect. Appellant'......
-
Maldonado v. City of N.Y.
...A.D.3d 819, 13 N.Y.S.3d 552 ; Matter of Flores v. County of Nassau, 8 A.D.3d 377, 378, 777 N.Y.S.2d 739 ; Figueroa v. City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 909, 460 N.Y.S.2d 119 ). The line of duty injury (hereinafter LODI) report, the line of duty injury/illness medical report, and the LODI unu......
-
D'Anjou by D'Anjou v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...Auth., 156 A.D.2d 177, 548 N.Y.S.2d 222; Matter of Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636, 522 N.Y.S.2d 215; Figueroa v. City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 460 N.Y.S.2d 119). Additionally, although the petitioner is an infant, it is clear that the delay was unrelated to his infancy. Whil......