From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Barrett v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1956
1 A.D.2d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Summary

In Matter of Barrett v. City of New York (1 A.D.2d 993) the Appellate Division in this Department held that the failure to file the notice required by section 50-e (supra) was not excused, despite claimant's infancy, where it was due not to the infancy but to the alleged inability of the claimant's attorney to ascertain the ownership of the property.

Summary of this case from Matter of Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemn

Opinion

May 8, 1956


In granting the application for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law, the court acted upon what it believed to be sufficient grounds for the exercise of its discretion. Unfortunately, sympathetic consideration notwithstanding, the statute reposes no discretion in the court where the application is made more than one year after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based ( Matter of Martin v. School Board of Long Beach, 301 N.Y. 233; Matter of Karabinakis v. City of New York, 1 A.D.2d 941). Moreover, the failure to serve a timely notice of claim was not due to infancy but rather to the alleged inability of the claimant's attorney to ascertain the ownership of the property. The failure to comply with the statutory requirement, therefore, was not due to any disability which would permit the granting of relief under subdivision 5 of section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied.

Concur — Peck, P.J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Valente, JJ. [ 208 Misc. 822.]


Summaries of

Matter of Barrett v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1956
1 A.D.2d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

In Matter of Barrett v. City of New York (1 A.D.2d 993) the Appellate Division in this Department held that the failure to file the notice required by section 50-e (supra) was not excused, despite claimant's infancy, where it was due not to the infancy but to the alleged inability of the claimant's attorney to ascertain the ownership of the property.

Summary of this case from Matter of Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemn
Case details for

Matter of Barrett v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RENEE BARRETT, an Infant, by SARAH BARRETT, Her Guardian…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 8, 1956

Citations

1 A.D.2d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Norr v. Spiegler

This fact was brought to this court's attention on the prior appeal together with references to GAC in the…

Matter of Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemn

This language is substantially identical with that used in subdivision 5 of section 50-e Gen. Mun. of the…