Gorinshek v. City of Johnstown
| Decision Date | 24 September 1992 |
| Citation | 588 N.Y.S.2d 208,186 A.D.2d 335 |
| Parties | In the Matter of James M. GORINSHEK, Respondent, v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Horigan, Horigan, Pennock and Lombardo, P.C. (James A. Lombardo, of counsel), Amsterdam, for City of Johnstown and another, appellants.
Moran & Pronti (Jay A. Smith, of counsel), Clifton Park, for City of Gloversville, appellant.
Louis T. Brindisi (Anthony A. Murad, of counsel), Utica, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, LEVINE, CREW and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Best, J.), entered October 7, 1991 in Fulton County, which granted petitioner's applications pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve late notices of claim.
We affirm Supreme Court's grant of petitioner's applications pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file late notices of claim. Petitioner's medical records demonstrate that from the time of the accident (November 1989) until he met with counsel, he was suffering from the physical effects of his injuries. He was initially hospitalized for four days and underwent an operation to both his right wrist and ankle after which casts were applied. While convalescing at home, he underwent physical therapy and was treated by his physicians on a regular basis. The record before us substantiates that petitioner's physical disability justified his delay until April 1990 in retaining counsel (see, Morano v. County of Dutchess, 160 A.D.2d 690, 553 N.Y.S.2d 779; Matter of Savelli v. City of New York, 104 A.D.2d 943, 480 N.Y.S.2d 561). We also note that it was not until April 1990 that petitioner returned to work.
As to the issue of actual knowledge, petitioner claims that respondents had representatives at the job site whom he believed had notice of the accident and that he immediately reported the accident to the officials of the facility where it occurred (see, Matter of Ferrer v. City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 240, 567 N.Y.S.2d 734). Although respondents deny actual knowledge and claim prejudice due to the delay (they assert that they had no opportunity to investigate the work site which radically changed after the date of the accident and that this changed condition "may prevent an accurate reconstruction of the circumstances of the accident"), we note that because the injury allegedly resulted from a fall at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuda v. Rotterdam-Mohonasen Sch. Dist., ROTTERDAM-MOHONASEN
...the element of substantial prejudice is lacking given the transitory nature of the construction site (see, e.g., Matter of Gorinshek v City of Johnstown, 186 A.D.2d 335; Matter of Sutton v Town of Schuyler Falls, 185 A.D.2d 430; Matter of Ferrer v City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 240; Matter of......
-
Hayes v. Del.-Chenango-Madison-Otsego Bd. of Co-op. Educ. Serv.
...surgery and physical therapy as a result of the accident and that he remains disabled ( see Matter of Gorinshek v. City of Johnstown, 186 A.D.2d 335, 335, 588 N.Y.S.2d 208 [1992]; cf. Matter of Roberts v. County of Rensselaer, 16 A.D.3d 829, 829-830, 790 N.Y.S.2d 751 [2005] ). Moreover, res......
-
Matter of Riordan v. East Rochester Schools
...conditions existing at the time of the accident would [still] have existed' had the claim[] been timely filed" (Matter of Gorinshek v City of Johnstown, 186 A.D.2d 335, 336, quoting Matter of Ferrer v City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 240, 241). There is, however, no proof supporting the conclus......
-
Szymkowiak v. N.Y. Power Auth.
...of the accident[s] would [still] have existed’ " had the notice of claim been timely filed ( Matter of Gorinshek v. City of Johnstown , 186 A.D.2d 335, 336, 588 N.Y.S.2d 208 [3d Dept. 1992] ; see Matter of Riordan v. East Rochester Schs. , 291 A.D.2d 922, 924, 737 N.Y.S.2d 202 [4th Dept. 20......