MATTER OF ANSONG v. City of New York
Decision Date | 11 September 2003 |
Citation | 308 A.D.2d 333,764 N.Y.S.2d 182 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | In the Matter of CHARLES ANSONG, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
Petitioner claims that at 5:30 A.M. on July 25, 2001, New York City police officers awoke him, entered his apartment, attacked him and pushed him off his eighth floor balcony causing him to sustain various physical injuries. Petitioner was thereafter arrested and prosecuted until the case against him was dismissed on September 24, 2001. Petitioner served respondent with a notice of claim dated July 15, 2002 and moved on August 9, 2002 for permission to file a late notice of claim nunc pro tunc. The IAS court denied petitioner's application on the grounds that: (1) petitioner failed to establish that respondent acquired actual knowledge of the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter; and (2) petitioner failed to support his excuse of physical incapacitation with medical evidence from a doctor or other medical provider. Since respondent's employees allegedly assaulted petitioner and, therefore, must have had actual knowledge, and since a lack of reasonable excuse is not sufficient, without more, to deny an application for leave, we reverse.
Respondent's claimed lack of actual knowledge is completely refuted by the fact that the officers who allegedly assaulted petitioner would, as respondent's employees, have had immediate knowledge of the events giving rise to this dispute (see Diallo v City of New York, 224 AD2d 339, 340 [1996] [ ]). Respondent's claim of prejudice is similarly meritless since police and Criminal Court records pertaining to petitioner's arrest, as well as the favorable disposition of charges against him, are presumably still in existence (see Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356, 358 [1998] [ ]).
Pursuant to section 50-e (1) of the General Municipal Law, a notice of claim must generally be filed within 90 days after a claim against a municipality or municipal authority arises (Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 293 [2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orozco v. City of N.Y.
...claim where employees of police department engaged in conduct alleged to give rise to the claims]; Matter of Ansong v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 333, 764 N.Y.S.2d 182 [1st Dept. 2003] [knowledge imputed to the city where the officers who arrested the plaintiff had immediate knowledge of ......
-
Plaza v. N.Y. Health & Hospitals Corp.
...absence of an acceptable excuse for the delay alone does not compel denial of her application ( see Matter of Ansong v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 333, 334, 764 N.Y.S.2d 182 [2003] ). Here, plaintiff has not offered a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving the notice of claim. However......
-
Orozco v. The City of New York
...2021 NY Slip Op 07066 In the Matter of Adan Orozco, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The City of New York, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal No. 14325 Case No. 2021-01347 Index No ... in conduct alleged to give rise to the claims]; Matter ... of Ansong v City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 333 [1st Dept ... 2003] [knowledge imputed to the city where the officers who ... arrested the plaintiff ... ...
-
In the Matter of State Farm Insurance Company v. Suffolk Transportation Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 31241(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/14/2007)
...the absence of a reasonable excuse for a delay in filing is not, standing alone, fatal to the application (Matter of Ansong v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 333, 334, 764 N.Y.S.2d 182; Weiss v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 212, 213, 655 N.Y.S.2d As stated above, the Court generally will focu......