Kim v. City of New York

Decision Date08 December 1998
Citation681 N.Y.S.2d 247
Parties1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,868 Sharon KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Kenneth J. Halperin, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew J. Maiorana, for Defendants-Respondents.

MILONAS, J.P., NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 21, 1996 and May 16, 1997, which denied petitioner's application to serve a late notice of claim, and, insofar as appealable, denied her motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner's motion to renew, which proffered the "Aided Report" she filed in connection with the accident, was properly denied in the absence of a reasonable excuse for not having submitted the report on the first motion (see, Leonard Fuchs, Inc. v. Laser Processing Corp., 222 A.D.2d 280, 635 N.Y.S.2d 224). In any event, we would affirm the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim even if we were to consider the report. The report, which was prepared 27 days after the accident, and states that petitioner, a student at the Fashion Institute of Technology, was instructed by a teacher to move a large piece of plywood petitioner was working with from against the wall and that the plywood fell on her foot, cannot be read as giving notice of a claim that respondents were negligent in not providing petitioner with the mechanical means to move the plywood and otherwise in their supervision of petitioner's activities. Nor does it indicate, as petitioner argues, that respondents had investigated the accident (see, Mateo v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 25, 664 N.Y.S.2d 449; Rodriguez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 190 A.D.2d 579, 593 N.Y.S.2d 519, lv. dismissed, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1041, 600 N.Y.S.2d 441, 616 N.E.2d 1103; see also, Chattergoon v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 141, 142, 554 N.Y.S.2d 859, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 958, 574 N.Y.S.2d 934, 580 N.E.2d 406). Petitioner's almost year-long delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim prejudiced respondents' ability to investigate the claim, including any communications between petitioner and the teacher concerning the movement of the plywood, and it does not avail petitioner that the reason for this delay was her attorney's unexplained failure to realize that the Fashion Institute of Technology is part of the City University of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Corwin v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 d3 Julho d3 2016
    ...present claim that the railroad car had a bent edge and was not equipped with proper safety devices]; Kim v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 83, 84, 681 N.Y.S.2d 247 [1st Dept. 1998] [knowledge that the petitioner was injured when instructed by a teacher to move a large piece of plywood, was n......
  • Requena v. The N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 21 d4 Dezembro d4 2023
    ... 2023 NY Slip Op 34493(U) ROSALYN REQUENA, Petitioner, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL BUS UMBRELLA SERVICES, INC. Respondents. Index No. 150577/2023, Motion ... ...
  • Clarke v. The N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 1 d3 Março d3 2023
    ... 2023 NY Slip Op 30665(U) TYRONE CLARKE, Claimant, v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA BUS COMPANY, BUS OPERATOR SIEGREID SEVERIN Respondents. INDEX No. 157920/2022, ... ...
  • Kim v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 d4 Abril d4 1999
    ...Sharon KIM, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. April 29, 1999. Reported below, --- A.D.2d ----, 681 N.Y.S.2d 247. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court's order ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT