From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lamper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1995
215 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 8, 1995

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim as the petitioner failed to provide a valid excuse for the delay (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The petitioner's assertion that he lacked fluency in the English language is an unacceptable excuse for failure to timely serve a notice of claim (see, Matter of Tricomi v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 447; Figueroa v City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908). Moreover, the petitioner's claim of law office failure is unsubstantiated by the record. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Lamper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1995
215 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Lamper v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SEMION LAMPER, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: May 8, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

Vega v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport

0, 801, 959 N.Y.S.2d 738 ; Matter of Farfan v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 714, 715, 955 N.Y.S.2d 365 ;…

Matter of Rosenblatt v. City of New York

However, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in this case. Counsel's vague and unelaborated…