Santana v. City of New York
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 584 N.Y.S.2d 53,183 A.D.2d 665 |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1992 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Marisol SANTANA and Felix Maldonado, a Minor by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Marisol Santana, Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and New York City Police Department, Respondents-Respondents. |
Page 53
Felix Maldonado, a Minor by his Mother and Natural
Guardian, Marisol Santana, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK and New York City Police Department,
Respondents-Respondents.
First Department.
Before CARRO, J.P., and MILONAS, KUPFERMAN, ASCH and SMITH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered June 5, 1991, which denied petitioners' motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, without costs.
Petitioner Marisol Santana claims that during a two-year period from 1988 to 1990, while she was a tenant in a city-owned building, she was threatened and assaulted by her next door neighbor, Guillermo Vidal, and that she made repeated requests of the building manager to relocate her and her infant son, but these requests were ignored or denied. Ms. Santana also complained to the police and obtained an order of protection in 1990. On June 21, 1990, while on the building staircase, Vidal shot Santana in the chest. The police investigated the incident, and Vidal was arrested, convicted and imprisoned.
Santana retained counsel on July 6, 1990, shortly after her release from the hospital. However, she moved from her residence and neglected to advise her counsel of her forwarding address (she also had no telephone at her new abode). Counsel was unable to locate Santana until December 1990, whereupon notices of claim were filed on January 8 and February 1, 1991. On March 27, 1991 Santana moved for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The IAS court denied the motion on the grounds that Santana had offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that knowledge of the incident by the police did not constitute notice to the Comptroller of petitioners' claim.
General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which permits the court in its discretion to extend the time for filing a notice of claim,
Page 54
is remedial in nature, and so should be liberally construed (Matter of Matey v. Bethlehem Cent. School Dist., 89 Misc.2d 390, 394, 391 N.Y.S.2d 357, affd, 63 A.D.2d 807, 405 N.Y.S.2d 156). The statute places a compound [183 A.D.2d 666] emphasis on the element of prejudice by requiring the court to consider whether the public...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nunez v. Vill. of Rockville Ctr.
...of Ragland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 201 A.D.2d at 11, 613 N.Y.S.2d 937 ; 111 N.Y.S.3d 79 Matter of Santana v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 665, 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 53 ; Tatum v. City of New York, 161 A.D.2d 580, 581, 555 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; McKenna v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 655, 546 N.Y......
-
Ruiz v. City of N.Y., 2015-09778, Index No. 506408/15.
...581, 555 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; see also Nunez v. City of New York, 307 A.D.2d 218, 762 N.Y.S.2d 384 ; Matter of Santana v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 665, 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 53 ).In response to the petitioner's initial showing, the City failed to make a "particularized evidentiary showing that [i......
-
N. F. v. City of N.Y., 2016–09294
...581, 555 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; see also Nunez v. City of New York, 307 A.D.2d 218, 762 N.Y.S.2d 384 ; Matter of Santana v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 665, 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 53 ).Given that Matter of Newcomb was decided during the pendency of this appeal, and since the Supreme Court relied upon t......
-
Ruperti v. Lake Luzerne Cent. School Dist.
...of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) (see, Camacho v. City of New York, 187 A.D.2d 262, 263, 589 N.Y.S.2d 421; Matter of Santana v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 665, 584 N.Y.S.2d 53) and the absence of any persuasive reason to deny petitioner's application, we are of the view that it was impr......