Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008

Grande v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 13, 2008

48 A.D.3d 565; 853 N.Y.S.2d 353

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Abreu v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Catuosco v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Friedman v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Matter of Sollecito v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Maldari v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Carter v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Hannon v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Martell v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Charlemagne v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Ky Tong Tang v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Matter of McFarland v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Maldonado v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Baum v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Indar v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rasizzi v. NYC School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Werner v. Nyack Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

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 pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated January 24, 2007, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the peti*566tion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioners did not establish that the respondent had actual notice of the claim. Although a line of duty injury report was prepared by the Department of Sanitation immediately after the accident, it merely indicated that the petitioner was injured when he slipped from a salt spreader’s ladder, which was not sufficient to give the appellant “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). What satisfies the statute is knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist, 50 AD3d 138 [2008]; Matter of Carpenter v City of New York, 30 AD3d 594, 595 [2006]; Matter of DiBella v City of New York, 234 AD2d 366, 367 [1996]). Additionally, the petitioners did not demonstrate a valid excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim (see Casias v City of New York, 39 AD3d 681, 683 [2007]; Matter of O’Dowd v City of New York, 226 AD2d 642 [1996]). Finally, although we need not reach the issue of prejudice based on the foregoing, we note that petitioners failed to demonstrate that the appellant was not prejudiced in its ability to investigate the accident and prepare a defense as a result of the delay (see Matter of Bruzzese v City of New York, 34 AD3d 577, 578 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Covello, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.