Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Santiago v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 23, 2011

85 A.D.3d 628; 925 N.Y.S.2d 500

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Romero v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Cassidy v. New York City Tr. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Matter of Baum v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Gonzalez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Zapata v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Zapata v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Joplin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Joplin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Alladice v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Alladice v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered July 30, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 14, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s motion to renew the prior motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s proffered excuse of law office failure does not adequately excuse the delay in serving a notice of claim (see Ordillas v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 50 AD3d 391 [2008]). In addition, respondent did not acquire actual notice of the essential facts *629constituting the claim within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period or within a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see also Ordillas, 50 AD3d at 391-392). Lastly, petitioner’s unsupported assertion that the condition of the subway staircase upon which he allegedly tripped remained unchanged seven months after his accident is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of any prejudice to respondent from his delay (see Matter of Kelley v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 76 AD3d 824, 828-829 [2010]; Ordillas, 50 AD3d at 392).

Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s motion to renew. The color photographs of the alleged defect do not constitute new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Richter and DeGrasse, JJ.

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