Mallory v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 14 December 1987 |
| Citation | 135 A.D.2d 636,522 N.Y.S.2d 215 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William H. MALLORY, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, Mineola (B. Jennifer Jaffee, on brief), for appellants.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Goldi S. Juer, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAWRENCE, KUNZEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated September 24, 1986, which denied their petition.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant William H. Mallory, a New York City police officer, was injured while on duty at a police station. He did not file a timely notice of claim on the city as required by General Municipal Law § 50-e. The denial of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was a proper exercise of discretion, since the city did not receive actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claim nor did he provide a valid excuse for his delay (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Fox v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 624, 456 N.Y.S.2d 806; Matter of Raczy v. County of Westchester, 95 A.D.2d 859, 464 N.Y.S.2d 223). The appellant William H. Mallory's Line of Duty Accident Report did not contain the essential facts of the accident as contemplated by statute and, thus, the city had no actual knowledge of the claim against it (see, Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 255, 483 N.Y.S.2d 401). The excuses for the delay, that Mr. Mallory was unaware of the requirements of the statute and that he was disabled, are not valid since ignorance of the statute has been held not to constitute a valid excuse and his disability is undocumented (see, Figueroa v. New York, 92 A.D.2d 908, 460 N.Y.S.2d 119; Matter of Savelli v. City of New York, 104 A.D.2d 943, 944, 480 N.Y.S.2d 561).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Anjou by D'Anjou v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...A.D.2d 824, 571 N.Y.S.2d 52; Matter of Perez v. New York City Hous. 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 i......
-
Leiblein v. Clark
...connect the accident with any negligence on the part of the Town, knowledge cannot be imputed to the Town (see, Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636, 522 N.Y.S.2d 215; Matter of Perry v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692, 519 N.Y.S.2d 862; Levine v. City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 785, 4......
-
Weber v. County of Suffolk
...Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 141, 142, 554 N.Y.S.2d 859, aff'd 78 N.Y.2d 958, 574 N.Y.S.2d 934, 580 N.E.2d 406; Matter of Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636, 522 N.Y.S.2d 215, appeal denied 72 N.Y.2d 803, 532 N.Y.S.2d 369, 528 N.E.2d 521; Levine v. City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 785, 490 ......
-
Light v. County of Nassau
...not provide the County with knowledge of the essential facts of the claim as contemplated by the statute (see, Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636, 522 N.Y.S.2d 215). Finally, the petitioner argues, inter alia, that he was not aware that a notice of claim requirement was applicable,......