Alexander v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Townson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Matter of Rodriguez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Strohmeier v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Pipitone v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Bucher v. Town of Eastchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Bruzzese v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Ocasio v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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
Order, Súpreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 26, 2002, denying petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Eetitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a timely notice of claim, failed to establish that respondents had notice of the facts constituting his claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and failed to show that respondents will not be substantially prejudiced in their ability to investigate this matter and defend the claim on the merits (Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320 [2003]). His excuse for the delay—that he was awaiting an accident report—was unreasonable, inasmuch as he had all the information necessary to file a timely notice. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the facts upon which liability is predicated were not discernible from the workers’ compensation report allegedly filed with the City by petitioner’s employer (see Matter of Mc-Loughlin v City of New York, 178 AD2d 193, 194 [1991]). Moreover, substantial passage of time since February 2001 has prejudiced respondents’ ability to investigate the alleged defects in the ladder or to collect testimony from witnesses whose memories are fresh. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.