From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 26, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court weighed and considered all the relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim. Its decision is well within the parameters of discretion reserved to it by General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) and, accordingly, will not be disturbed.

In the instant case, the petitioners failed to adequately explain the unreasonable delay in bringing the application for leave to serve the late notice of claim until 10 months after the accident and 7 months after the expiration of the prescribed 90-day period. Not only did the petitioners fail to submit any medical affidavit or hospital records to document an alleged physical disability which may have prevented the timely serving of a notice of claim (see, Fox v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 624; cf., Matter of Savelli v. City of New York, 104 A.D.2d 943), but the duration of the claimed incapacitation only accounted for 5 of the 10 months which elapsed before the instant application was made.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the City of New York or its attorney or its insurance carrier acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the prescribed 90-day period or within a reasonable time thereafter. It is undisputed that no police or accident report was prepared or filed with respect to the petitioner Robert Carroll's fall from a metal stairway leading to the trailer platform adjacent to dry dock number 4 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. According to the proposed notice of claim, the stairway was negligently secured and broke loose, causing the petitioner to be thrown from it. The bare assertions by the petitioners' counsel that the city created the dangerous condition are totally inadequate to establish actual knowledge on its part of the essential facts constituting the claim (see, Kravitz v. County of Rockland, 112 A.D.2d 352, affd 67 N.Y.2d 685). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carroll v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Carroll v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. CARROLL et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: May 26, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Munnerlyn v. City of New York

Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate lack of prejudice to the appellant as a result of the nine-month…

Matter of Kliment v. City of Syracuse

Petitioner further asserts in a reply affidavit that his nine-day hospitalization as a result of his injuries…