Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995

Ragin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 29, 1995

222 A.D.2d 678; 636 N.Y.S.2d 83; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Vicari v. Grand Avenue Middle School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Rush v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Greene v. City of Middletown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Turner v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Gofman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Bollerman v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Winston v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Embery v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Landa v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Shapiro v. Town of Clarkstown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
James v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a proceeding to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 15, 1993, which denied his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s ignorance of the requirement that a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e must be served within 90 days after accrual of the claim is not a legally acceptable excuse (see, Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527; Sellars v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 AD2d 691). Nor *679is there merit to the petitioner’s argument that actual knowledge of his false arrest claim may be imputed to the City of New York merely because the petitioner’s attorney wrote to the Queens County District Attorney, shortly after the incident occurred, to request dismissal of the charges (see generally, Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 141, affd 78 NY2d 958).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.